1-2-7S 


tibxaxy  of  Che  theological  ^mrnaxy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


•d^^D* 


Green  Fimd 


BX  8956  .H688  1878 
Hodge,  Charles,  1797-1878 
Discussions  in  church  polit 


■.A 


DISCUSSIONS 


IN 


CHUKOH    POLITY, 


FEOM    THE    CONTBIBUTIONS    TO    THE    "PRINCETON    REVIEW." 


CHARLES  HODGE,  D.  D. 


SELECTED  AND  ARRANGED  BY  THE  REV.  WILLIAM  DURANT, 


WITH   A   PEEFACE  BT 


ARCHIBALD  ALEXANDER  HODGE,  D.  a 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS, 

743   AND  745   BKOADWAY. 


Copyright,  1878. 


BY  CHABLES  SCEIBNER'S  SONS. 


GRANT,  FAIRES  &  RODGERS, 

Electrotypera  &  Printers, 

62  &  54  North  Sixth  St.,  Philadelphia. 


PREFACE 


In  1835  my  father  began  to  write  a  series  of  annual  articles,  in 
review  of  the  action  of  each  successive  General  Assembly,  in  which  he 
iurnished  a  brief  narrative  of  the  proceedings,  and  discussed  the 
doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  principles  involved.  He  contributed  each 
of  the  articles  of  this  series  which  appeared  in  the  Princeton  Reviexo 
from  1835  to  1868,  with  the  exception  probably  of  that  of  1841.  They, 
therefore,  contain  an  exposition  of  his  views  of  the  fundamental 
principles  underlying  the  constitution  of  the  Church  and  its  adminis- 
tration, and  of  the  practical  application  of  these  principles  to  the 
various  historical  conditions  experienced  by  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  during  that  long  period. 

In  1845  he  began  to  lecture  to  his  classes  in  the  Seminary  on  the 
topics  embraced  under  the  general  head  of  Ecclesiology,  and  eventually 
lectured  over  the  whole  ground  embraced  in  this  department.  At  that 
time  it  was  apparently  his  purpose  to  prepare  for  publication  an 
exhaustive  treatise  on  the  subject,  defending  Presbyterian  Church  order 
in  view  of  the  present  attitude  of  its  Prelatic  and  Independent  oppo- 
nents. His  manuscripts  disclose  the  fact  that  these  lectures  were  more 
than  once  rewritten,  and  articles  substantially  identical  with  several  of 
them  were  published  in  the  Princeton  Reviexo  in  successive  years  from 
1846  to  1857.  After  the  publication  of  his  Systematic  Theology,  he 
often  expressed  the  desire  that  he  might  be  permitted  to  complete  that 
work  by  the  addition  of  a  fourth  volume  embracing  the  department  of 
Ecclesiology;  but  he  was  prevented  by  the  infirmities  incident  to  his 
advanced  age.    And  it  is  with  reluctance  that  his  representatives  now 


lU 


iv  PREFACE. 

relinquish  the  hope  of  publishing  these  papers  in  a  connected  form, 
from  the  conviction  that  they  have  no  right  to  publish  in  his  name  that 
which  his  own  judgment  regarded  as  too  imperfectly  elaborated. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Rev.  William  Durant,  of  Albany,  N.  Y.,  an 
intelligent  and  enthusiastic  pupil  of  my  father,  was  struck  with  the 
vast  amount  of  valuable  discussion  of  Church  principles  and  their 
practical  applications,  contained  in  these  articles.  He  believed  that  if 
selections  from  these  discussions  were  judiciously  made  and  systemati- 
cally grouped,  a  work  of  great  value  might  be  offered  to  the  ministry, 
and  to  those  intelligent  laymen  who  are  interested  in  the  administration 
of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  He  consequently  accomplished  this  work  with 
the  cordial  approval  of  my  father.  After  its  completion,  at  the  request 
of  ]\Ir.  Durant,  I  subjected  his  work  to  a  general  review,  and  have  now 
entire  confidence  in  thus  publicly  testifying  to  my  conviction  that  in 
the  selection  and  arrangement  of  extracts,  the  reader  of  this  work  will 
have  a  fair,  and,  as  far  as  the  circumstances  admit,  an  adequate 
exposition  of  my  father's  views,  expressed  in  his  own  language,  on  all 
the  subjects  set  forth  in  the  table  of  contents.  This  table  of  contents 
itself  discloses  the  wide  range  and  the  thorough  analysis  embraced  in 
these  discussions;  and  hence  the  very  considerable  contribution  made 
in  this  volume  to  the  elucidation  of  the  subject  set  forth  on  its  title 
page. 

A.  A.  HODGE. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  Sept.  10th,  1878. 


OOl^TENTS. 


Pbeface 

List  of  Selections  in  the  Oedee  of  Publication., 


PART  I. 

PRELIMINARY   PRINCIPLES. 
Inteodttctoey  Notes  to  "Geneeal  Assembly"  Aeticles 


CHAPTER  I. 
Idea  of  the  Chubch 6-38 


CHAPTER  II. 


Theoeies  of  the  Chtjech. 


CHAPTER  III. 
Visibility  of  the  Chuech 55-67 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Peepetuity  of  the  Chuech.. 


:  CHAPTER  V. 
PEiNciPLEa  OF  Chuech  Union „ 89-100 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Peovince  OF  the  Chtjech 100-106 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Relation  of  the  CnrECH  and  State 106-118 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Pbisbytebianish M ....„„..« ., » 118-133 

V 


vi  CONTEXTS. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PAOI. 

Thb  CnracH  of  England  and  Pbesbyteuian  Okbebs 134-166 


CHAPTER  X. 
PaeeBTTEBiAM  Litubqieb 157-167 


PART   II. 

APPLICATION   OP  PRINCIPLES. 

CHAPTER   XI. 

History  and  Intent  op  Constitution 171-189 

CHAPTER  XII. 

A  Pabticclae  Cutjrch 190-242 

Section  1. — The  Session  says  who  are  Church  Members 190 

"      2. — Validity  of  Eomish  Baptism 191 

"      3. — Infant  Members  Subjects  of  Discipline 216 

4. — Terms  of  Communion  : 

a.  The  Lord's  Table  for  the  Lord's  People 218 

b.  Credible  Evidence  of  Conversion  alone  required 218 

c.  Temperance  Question 224 

d.  Marriage  Question 231 

Section  5. — Dismission  of  Members  to  other  Churches 236 

"      6. — Withdrawal  from  the  Communion 239 

CHAPTER  XIIL 

Chdbch  Officees 242-300 

Section  1. — Title  of  Bishop 242 

"      2.— Who  may  vote  in  the  Election  of  a  Pastor 244 

"      3.— Support  of  the  Clergy 247 

"      4. — Warrant  and  Theory  of  Ruling  Eldership 262 

"      6. — Rights  of  Ruling  Elders 271 

"      6.— Whether  Ruling  Elders  may  join  in  the  Imiiosition  of  Hands  when 

Ministers  are  ordained 288 

"      7. — Significance  of  Laying-on  of  Hands 295 

"       8. — Installation  not  essential  to  Validity  of  Eldership 295 

"      9. — Right  of  Elders  to  e.xhort  and  expound  the  Scriptures 298 

"     10.— Relative  Powers  of  Elders  and  Deacons 299 

CHAPTER  XIV.  ■. 

The  Presdtteey 300-3fi3 

Section  1. — Quorum  of  Presbytery 30o 

"      2. — Ordination  by  less  than  three  Ministers 305 

"      3. — Presbytery  judges  the  Qualifications  of  Members   307 

"      4. — Length  of  Study  before  Ordination SH 

"       5. — Ordination  sine  titulo _,..  314 

*'      6. — Reordination 316 

"      7. — Adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 

a.  In  Reply  to  certain  Strictures _ 817 

6.  In  View  of  the  Reunion 336 


CONTENTS.  vii 


PAGE. 

Section  8. — Church  Membership  of  Ministers 342 

"      9. — Ministers  without  Pastoral  Charge 343 

"    10.— Demission  of  the  Ministry 345 

"    11. — Commissions  of  Presbyteries  and  Synods 353 

**    12. — Supervision  of  vacant  Churches 362 


CHAPtER  XV. 

The  Gekebal  Assembly 364-45G 

(Section  I. — Commissioners : 

a.  Assembly  judges  the  Qualifications  of  its  Members 364 

b.  Disputed  Elections 3C5 

c.  Irregular  Commissions 366 

d.  Case  of  an  Elder  who  had  ceased  to  act 366 

e.  Commissioners  excluded  pending  Investigation 368 

/.  Reduction  of  Representation 370 

Section2. — Manner  of  Conducting  Business 373 

"      3.— Power  to  act  by  Commission 374 

"      4. — Decisions  and  Deliverances  on  Doctrines: 

a.  General  Remark 377 

b.  Testimony  against  Erroneous  Publications „ 378 

c.  Church  Commentary  on  the  Bible 3S0 

Section  5. — Superintendence : 

a.  Disposal  of  the  Members  of  a  dissolved  Presbytery 384 

6.  Exclusion  of  the  Synod  of  Western  Reserve 3S5 

e.  Report  on  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville 399 

d.  Power  to  remove  Sentence 414 

Section  6. — General  Agencies  : 

a.  Voluntary  Societies  and  Church  Boards 417 

b.  Warrant  for  the  Boards 435 

c.  Relations  of  Boards  to  Presbyteries 443 

d.  Board  of  Education  may  condition  Aid  on  Length  of  Study 446 

e.  Parochial  Schools „  443 

Serffon  7.— Correspondence  with  other  Churches 454 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

DisfiriiyE " 45G-507 

Section  1.— Revision  of  the  Book: 

a.  Need  of  Revision _  456 

6.  Effective  Methods  for  Revision 459 

Section  2.— Citation  of  Judicatories 461 

"      3. — Appeals  and  Complaints: 

a.  Appeals  in  Cases  not  Judicial 470 

6.  Review  of  a  Decision  that  Appeals  cannot  lie  except  in  Judicial  Cases      485 

c.  Legitimate  Grounds  of  Complaint 490 

d.  In  favor  of  a  Commission  to  try  Appeals  and  Complaints 498 

Seetioni. — Decisions  may  confirm  or  reverse  in  part 499 

'•      6. — Finality  of  the  Assembly's  Judicial  Decisions 500 


Index -^ -  609 


,'r      X'  _ 


\riri:oLO 


■jii. 


LIST  OF  SELECTI^S:^;,;^.^.  .  ,^ 


IN  THE 


Order  of  their  Publication  in  tiie  Princeton  Review. 


TEAE 

PAOI 

AND   TITLE   IN  THE   EEVIEW. 

TITUS  IN   CHUBCH   POLITT. 

PAGES. 

1835 

440 
443 

461 

469 

476 

101 

407 
411 

436 

448 

476 

463 

490 
492 
429 

413 
415 

589 

479 

481 
482 

General  Assembly. 

"            "         "Right  of  Dr.  Edson  to 

Introductory  Note 

3 

1S35 

Commissioners ;  Case  of  an 
Elder  who  had  ceased  to 
Act 

"            "         "  Pittsburg  Memorial.' 

"            "         '-Pittsburg  Memorial." 

"            "         "  Ministers  without 

Pastoral  Charge."... 

Voluntary  Societies  and  Ecclesiastical  Or- 
ganizations  

366-368 

1835 
1835 

Presbyteryjudges  the  Quali- 
fications of  its  Members. 

Testimony  against  Errone- 
ous Publications 

307-313 
378-380 

1835 

Same  title 

343-345 

1837 

<i       <( 

417-435 

4 

1837 

General  Assembly,  foot-note 

1837 

Assembly's  Deliverances  on 

"            "         "Citation  of  Judicato- 
ries."   

377 

1837 

461-470 

385-399 
384-385 

171  189 

1837- 

"            "         "  Exclusion  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Western  Re- 
serve."  

•<       « 

1837 
1838 

"             "  Reviewing  "A  Review  of  the 
Leading  Measures  of  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  by  a  Member  of  the  New  York  Bar." 

From  the  same - 

Disposal  of  the  Members  of 
a  Dissolved  Presbytery... 

History  and  Intent  of  Con- 

1838 
1838 

Assembly  Judges  the  Quali- 
ficatioas  of  its  Members.. 

Commissioners      Excluded 
Pending  Investigation.... 

Appeals  in  Cases  not  Judicial 
Correspondence  with  other 

364 

1839 

"            ••         "Complaintof  A.D.Met- 
calf  and  others  against 
the  Synod  of  Virginia." 

CI               a 

368-370 
470-484 

l<                 ct 

454-458 

1840 

Decisions  may  Confirm  or 
Reverse  in  Part 

Terms  of  Communion ;  Cred- 
ible Evidence  of  Conver- 
sion alone  Required 

1840 

499 

r    1842 

General  Assembly ;  "Hasty  Ordinations, 
and  Unauthorized  Demission  of  the 

218-224 
314-316 

i/  1842 
■      1842 

Supervision  of  Vacant 
Churches _ 

Significance  of  Laying-on  of 

Gen'l  Assembly,    "  Imposition  of  Hands." 

362,363 
295 

IX 


LIST  OF  SELECTIONS  FROM  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


TEAB. 

PAGE 

fc^ 

1843 

313 

•/ 

1843 

408 

! 

1843 

421 

1/ 

1843 

432 

t 

1843 

444 

' 

1843 

450 

1/ 

1843 

457 

IX 

1843 

461 

\y 

1844 

424 

V 

1844 

446 

f 

1845 

444 

184G 

137 

f' 

1846 

418 

V 

1846 

433 

1847 

360 

\! 

1847 

397 

v^ 

1847 

400 

^ 

1847 

411 

- 

1848 

408 

■ 

1848 

416 

V 

1850 

408 

/ 

1850 

477 

■ 

1851 

550 

i 

1852 

497 

K 

1853 

249 

; 

1853 

451 

V 

1853 

452 

AND  TITLE   OF   THE  REVIEW. 


TITLE   IN   CKUBCH   POLITY. 


Rights  of  Ruling  Elders 

General  Assembly.  "Disputed  Elections." 

"            *•         "Church    Membership 
ofMinisters." 

.  "  "         "Ruling  Elders." 


"Quorum  of  Presby  t'y.' 
"Marriage  Question.". 


"  Case  of  the  Rev.  Arch- 
ibald McQueen.".... 

"Temperance  Quest'n." 


"Appeal  and  Complaint 
of  R.  J.  Breckinridge 
and  others." 


"  Board  of  Education." 


"  "        "  Romish  Baptism." 

Theories  of  the  Church 

General  Assembly ;  "Title  of  Bishop." 

"  "  "  Parochial  Schools.' 
Support  of  the  Clergy 


Same  title., 


Whether  Ruling  Elders  may 
join  in  the  Imposition  of 
Hands  when  Ministers 
are  Ordained 

Same  title 

Terms  of  Communion;  same 
title 

Power  of  Assembly  to  Re- 
move Sentence 

Terms  of  Communion ;  same 
title 

Legitimate  Grounds  of  Com- 
plaint  


Conditioning  Aid  on  Length 
of  Study 

Validity  of  Romish  Baptism 

Same  title 


General  Assembly,  "  Reduction  of  Repre- 
sentation  


"  Commissions  of  Pres 
byteries  &  Synods." 

"  The  McQueen  Case." 


"  "  "Risht  of  Church 
Members  to  withdraw  from  the  Com- 
munion of  the  Church 


General  Assembly ;  "  Dr.  Skinner's  Appeal 
from  the  Decision  of  the  Synod  of 
Virginia" ~ 


General  Assembly ;  "  Overture  No.  3, — on 
Church  Members." 


General  Assembly ;  "Ordination.". 


"            "         "  Dismission  of  Mem- 
bers to  other  Churches 


General  Assembly  ;  "  Reordination.".. 
Idea  of  the  Church 


General  Assembly,    "  Irregular   Commis' 
sions 


Overtures.", 


Finality  of  the  Assembly's 
Judicial  Decisions 

Same  title 


Review  of  a  Decision  that 
Appeals  cannot  lie  except 
in  Judicial  Cases 

The  Session  says  who  are 
Church  Members 

Ordination  by  less  than  three 
Ministers 


Same  title.. 


The    Lord's  Table    for  the 
Lord's  People , 


271-287 
305 


288-294 
300-305 

231-236 

414-417 

224^231 

490-498 

445-447 

191-215 
38-55 
242,243 
447-454 
247-262 

370-373 

353-362 

500-507 
239-242 

485-490 

190, 191 

305-307 

23G-239 

316 

5-38 

3G6 

as 


LIST  OF  SELECTIONS  FKOM  PRINCETON  REVIEW. 


3C1 


496 

527 

670 
377 

445 
502 

582 

686 

689 
471 

487 

559 

669 
3G0 
603 

607 

511 

546 

482 

493 

498 

679 
513 

271 

454 
506 


AND  TITLE   IN   THE   EEVIEW. 


General  Assembly,  "  Board  of  Missions."... 


"CompJaint  of  James 
Russell" 


Visibility  of  the  Church 

The  Church  of  England  and  Presbyterian 
Orders 


Presbyterian  Liturgies 

General  Assembly,  "  Commissions.".. 


"Judicial  Cases." 


TTie  Church — Its  Perpetuity 

General  Assembly ;  "  Relative  Powers  of 
Elders  and  Deacons.' 

"  "         "Right  of  Elders  to  Ex- 

hort and  Expound  the  Scriptures.".., 

General  Assembly ;  "  Church  Commentary 
on  the  Bible." 


TITLE  IN   CHUKCH   POLIir. 


Relations   of    Boards     and 
Presbyteries 


In  Favorof  a  Commission  to 
try  Appeals  and  Complaints 

Same  title ^ 


Power  of  Assembly  to  act  by 
Commissions 


Need  of  Revision  of  Book  of 
Discipline 


Installation  not  Essential  to 
Validity  of  Eldership 


Perpetuity  of  the  Church...- 


Adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
Demission  of  the  Ministry 


General   Assembly ;    "  Revised   Book  of 
Discipline." 


General   Assembly ;    "  Colonization    and 
Theory  of  the  Church, 

"            "         "  Reorganization  of  the 
'  Boards." 


Presbyterianism 

General  Assembly ;. 


Relation  of  the  Church  and  State 

General  Assembly;    "Revised    Book    of 
Discipline." 


Same  title., 


Infant  Members  Subjects  of 
Discipline 


Province  of  the  Church., 

Warrant  for  the  Boards., 
Same  title 


Who  may  Vote  in  the  Elec- 
tion of  Pastor 

Length  of  Study  before  Or- 
dination  


Manner  of  Conducting  Busi- 
ness  


Same  title. 


Principles  of  Church  Union  and  Reunion  of 
the  Old  and  New  School  Presbyterians.. 

General  Assembly ;  "  Report  on  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Louisville." 


General  Assembly,  "Reunion."., 


TTie  Elder  Question,  a  pamphlet,  signed 
"Geneva." 


Effective  Methods  for  Revi- 
sion  


Principles  of  Church  Union 
Same  title 


Adoption  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith 


Warrant  and  Theory  of  Rul- 
ing Eldership 


443-445 

498, 499 
55-67 

134-156 
157-167 

374-377 

456-459 

295-298 
67-88 

299 

298 

380-384 
317-335 
345-353 

215-217 

100-106 

435-443 
118-133 

244-247 

314 

373 
106-118 

459-461 

89-100 
399-413 

335-342 
262-271 


PART   I. 


PRELIMINAEY   PRINCIPLES. 


mill  Gi*  au*t 


THSOLOGIGiLli 


8>rrr 


'^. 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTES 


TO    THE 


ANNUAL   ARTICLES   ON   "THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY;" 


IN  THE  "PRINCETON  REVIEW,"  1835  and  1837. 


During  the  sessions  of  the  late  General  Assembly  of  our  Church,  so 
many  subjects  of  interest  were  brought  under  discussion,  that  a  brief 
review  of  the  more  important  of  these  topics  may  perhaps  be  both 
acceptable  and  useful.  The  principles  involved  in  the  settlement  of 
these  questions  are  likely  to  be  called  up  in  subsequent  Assemblies, 
and  must  influence,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  the  action  of  all  infe- 
rior judicatories.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  importance  to  have  the 
grounds  on  Avhich  certain  measures  were  advocated  and  opposed 
spread  before  the  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Church.  We  propose, 
therefore,  to  notice  the  most  important  questions  debated  and  deter- 
mined by  the  last  Assembly,  and  to  present  a  general  view  of  the 
arguments  on  both  sides.  "We  are  well  aware  that  this  is  a  difficult 
and  delicate  task.  Our  dependence  for  information  must  be  almost 
exclusively  on  the  reports  of  the  debates  published  in  the  religious 
journals,  which  are  confessedly  very  imperfect. 

Were  these  papers  in  the  hands  of  all  our  readers,  and  did  they  pre- 
sent the  information  which  we  wish  to  communicate  in  a  form  as  con- 
venient for  preservation  and  reference  as  the  pages  of  a  Quarterly 
Review,  we  might  well  spare  ourselves  the  labour  of  this  digest.  But 
this  not  being  the  case,  Ave  feel  we  shall  be  rendering  an  acceptable 
service  in  reducing  mthin  as  small  a  compass  as  possible  a  view  of  the 
more  important  discussions  of  the  supreme  judicatory  of  our  Church. 
There  is  one  other  preliminary  remark  that  we  wish  to  make.     While 

3 


4  INTKODUCTOKY  NOTES. 

we  shall  aim  at  perfect  impartiality  we  do  not  expect  fully  to  attain  it. 
It  is  next  to  impossible,  in  presenting  the  arguments  for  and  against 
any  particular  measure,  not  to  exhibit  those  which  strike  the  writer's 
own  mind  with  the  greatest  force,  with  more  clearness  and  effect  than 
those  of  an  opposite  character.  Our  readers  therefore  must  make  due 
allowance  on  this  score,  and  remember,  as  an  apology  for  occasional 
inaccuracy,  the  comparative  scantiness  of  the  sources  of  iiaformation  at 
our  command.     {Princeton  Revieiv,  1835,  p.  440.] 

It  may  be  proper  to  repeat  what  we  have  said  on  former  occasions, 
that  it  is  not  the  object  of  these  accounts  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Assembly,  to  give  the  minutes  of  that  body,  or  to  record  all  the  motions 
and  debates,  but  simply  to  select  the  topics  of  most  importance,  and  to 
give  the  best  view  we  can  of  the  arguments  on  either  side.  We  make 
no  pretensions  to  indifference  or  neutrality.  The  arguments  of  those 
from  whom  we  differ  we  try  to  give  with  perfect  fairness,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  the  language  of  the  rej)orts  given  by  their  friends.  But  we  do 
not  undertake  to  argue  the  case  for  them.  This  we  could  not  do  hon- 
estly or  satisfactorily.  On  the  other  hand,  we  endeavour  to  make  the 
best  argument  we  can  in  favour  of  the  measures  we  approve,  using  all 
the  speeches  of  the  supporters  of  those  measures,  and  putting  down 
any  thing  which  may  happen  to  occur  to  ourselves.  Our  object  is  to 
let  our  readers  know  what  questions  were  debated,  and  to  give  them 
the  best  means  in  our  power  to  form  an  opinion  of  the  correctness  of 
the  conclusions  arrived  at.     {Princeton  Review,  1837,  note  p.  407.] 


PRELIMmARY  PRINCIPLES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH.  [*] 

In  that  symbol  of  faith  adopted  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  com- 
monly called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Church  is  declared  to  be  "  the 
Communion  of  saints."  In  analyzing  the  idea  of  the  Church  here  pre- 
sented, it  may  be  proper  to  state,  first,  what  is  not  included  in  it ;  and 
secondly,  what  it  does  really  embrace. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  Church,  considered  as  the  communion  of 
saints,  does  not  necessarily  include  the  idea  of  a  visible  society  organ- 
ized under  one  definite  form.  A  kingdom  is  a  political  society  gov- 
erned by  a  king;  an  aristocracy  is  such  a  society  governed  by  a 
privileged  class ;  a  democracy  is  a  political  organization  having  the 
power  centred  in  the  people.  The  very  terms  suggest  these  ideas. 
There  can  be  no  kingdom  without  a  king,  and  no  aristocracy  without 
a  privileged  class.  There  may,  however,  be  a  communion  of  saints 
.without  a  visible  head,  without  prelates,  without  a  democratic  cove- 
nant. In  other  words,  the  Church,  as  defined  in  the  creed,  is  not  a 
monarchy,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  democracy.  It  may  be  either,  all,  or 
neither.  It  is  not,  however,  presented  as  a  visible  organization,  to 
which  the  form  is  essential,  as  in  the  case  of  the  human  societies  just 
mentioned. 

Again,  the  conception  of  the  Church  as  the  communion  of  saints, 
does  not  include  the  idea  of  any  external  organization.  The  bond  of 
union  may  be  spiritual.  There  may  be  communion  without  external 
organized  union.  The  Church,  therefore,  according  to  this  view,  is  not 
essentially  a  visible  society;  it  is  not  a  corporation  which  ceases  to 
exist  if  the  external  bond  of  union  be  dissolved.  It  may  be  proper  that 
such  union  should  exist ;  it  may  be  true  that  it  has  always  existed  ;  but 
it  is  not  necessary.     The  Church,  as  such,  is -not  a  visible  society.     AH 

[*  "Princeton  Review,"  same  title,  1853,  p.  249.] 

5 


6  CHURCH  POLITY. 

vi^jble  union,  all  external  organization,  may  cease,  and  yet,  so  long  as 
there  are  saints  who  have  comraunion,  the  Church  exists,  if  the  Church 
is  the  communiou  of  saints.  That  communion  may  be  in  faith,  in  love, 
in  obedience  to  a  common  Lord.  It  may  have  its  origin  in  something 
deeper  still ;  in  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  by  which  every  member  is  united  to  Christ,  and  all  the  mem- 
bers are  joined  in  one  body.  This  is  a  union  far  more  real,  a  com- 
munion far  more  intimate,  than  subsists  between  the  members  of  any 
visible  society  as  such.  So  far,  therefore,  is  the  Apostles'  Creed  from 
representing  the  Church  as  a  monarchy,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  democracy; 
so  far  is  it  from  setting  fortli  the  Church  as  a  visible  society  of  one 
specific  form,  that  it  does  not  present  it  under  the  idea  of  an  external 
society  at  all.  The  saints  may  exist,  they  may  have  communion,  the 
Church  may  continue  under  any  external  organization,  or  without  any 
visible  organization  whatever. 

What  is  affirmed  in  the  above  cited  definition  is,  first,  that  the 
Church  consists  of  saints;  and,  secondly,  of  saints  in  communion — that 
is,  so  united  as  to  form  one  body.  To  determine,  therefore,  the  true 
idea  of  the  Church,  it  is  only  necessary  to  ascertain  who  are  meant  by 
the  "  saints,"  and  the  nature  of  their  communion,  or  the  essential  bond 
y  by  which  they  are  united. 

The  word  a^co?,  mint,  signifies  holy,  worthy  of    reverence,   pure 

in  the  sense  of  freedom  either  from  guilt,  or  from  moral  pollution. 

The  word  aytaZsiv  means  to  render  holy,  or  sacred;    to  cleanse  from 

guilt,  as  by  a  sacrifice ;  or  from  moral  defilement,  by  the  renewing  of 

the  heart.     The  saints,  therefore,  according  to  the  scriptural  meaning 

of  the  term,  are  those  who  have  been  cleansed  from  guilt  or  justified, 

who  have  been  inwardly  renewed  or  sanctified,  and  who  have  been 

I     separated  from  the  world  and  consecrated  to  God.    Of  such  the  Church 

'     consists.     If  a  man  is  not  justified,  sanctified,  and  consecrated  to  God, 

1     he  is  not  a  saint,  and  therefore  does  not  belong  to  the  Church,  which  is 

1     the  communion  of  saints. 

Under  the  old  dispensation,  the  whole  nation  of  the  Hebrews  was 
called  holy,  as  separated  from  the  idolatrous  nations  around  them,  and 
consecrated  to  God.  The  Israelites  were  also  called  the  children  of 
God,  as  the  recipients  of  his  peculiar  favours.  These  expressions  had 
reference  rather  to  external  relations  and  privileges  than  to  internal 
character.  In  the  New  Testament,  however,  they  are  applied  only  to 
the  true  people  of  God.  None  are  there  called  saints  but  the  sanctified 
in  Christ  Jesus.  None  are  called  the  children  of  God,  but  those  born 
of  the  Spirit,  who  being  children  are  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs 
with  Jesus  (Jhrist  of  a  heavenly  inheritance.  When,  tlierefore,  it  is 
said  that  the  Church  consists  of  saints,  the  meaning  is  not  that  it  con- 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHUECH.  7 

sists  of  all  who  are  externally  consecrated  to  God,  irrespective  of  their 
moral  character,  but  that  it  consists  of  true  Christians  or  sincere  be- 
lievers. 

As  to  the  bond  by  which  the  saints  are  united  so  as  to  become  a 
Church,  it  cannot  be  anything  external,  because  that  may  and  always 
does  unite  those  who  are  not  saints.  The  bond,  whatever  it  is,  must  be 
peculiar  to  the  saints;  it  must  be  something  to  which  their  justification, 
sanctification,  and  access  to  God  are  due.  This  can  be  nothing  less 
than  their  relation  to  Christ.  It  is  in  virtue  of  union  with  him  that 
men  become  saints,  or  are  justified,  sanctified,  and  brought  nigh  to 
God.  They  are  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  bond  of  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  dwells  in  him  and  in 
them.  He  is  the  head,  they  are  the  members  of  his  body,  the  Church, 
which  is  one  body,  because  pervaded  and  animated  by  one  Spirit.  The 
proximate  and  essential  bond  of  union  between  the  saints,  that  which 
gives  rise  to  their  communion,  and  makes  them  the  Church  or  body  of 
Christ,  is,  therefore,  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Such,  then,  is  the  true  idea  of  the  Church,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing, 
the  idea  of  the  true  Church.  It  is  the  communion  of  saints,  the  body  i 
of  those  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit.  The 
two  essential  points  included  in  this  definition  are,  that  the  Church 
consists  of  saints,  and  that  the  bond  of  their  union  is  not  external 
organization,  but  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  These,  therefore, 
are  the  two  points  to  be  established.  As,  however,  the  one  involves  the 
other,  they  need  not  be  considered  separately.  The  same  arguments 
which  prove  the  one,  prove  also  the  other. 

By  this  statement,  it  is  not  meant  that  the  word  church  is  not  pro- 
perly used  in  various  senses.  The  object  of  inquiry  is  not  the  usage 
of  a  word,  but  the  true  idea  of  a  thing ;  not  how  the  word  church  is 
employed,  but  what  the  Church  itself  is.  Who  compose  the  Church  ? 
AVhat  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  that  body,  to  which  the  attributes, 
the  promises,  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  belong?  On  the  decision 
of  that  question  rests  the  solution  of  all  other  questions  in  controversy 
between  Romanists  and  Protestants. 

The  mode  of  verifying  the  true  idea  of  the  Church. — The  holy  Scrip- 
tures are  on  this,  as  on  all  other  matters  of  faith  or  practice,  our  only, 
infallible  rule.  "We  may  confirm  our  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures 
from  various  sources,  especially  from  the  current  judgment  of  the 
Church,  but  the  real  foundation  of  our  faith  is  to  be  sought  in  the  word 
of  God  itself.  The  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  Church,  are  both  direct  and  indirect.  They  didactically  assert 
what  the  Church  is,  and  they  teach  such  things  respecting  it,  as  neces- 
sarily lead  to  a  certain  concejition  of  its  nature. 


/ 


8  CHURCH  POLITY. 

"We  may  learn  from  the  Bible  the  true  idea  of  the  Church,  in  the 
first  place,  from  the  use  of  the  word  itself.  Under  all  the  various 
applications  of  the  term,  that  which  is  essential  to  the  idea  will 
be  found  to  be  expressed.  In  the  second  place,  the  equivalent  or 
descriptive  terms  employed  to  express  the  same  idea,  reveal  its  nature. 
In  the  third  place,  the  attributes  ascribed  to  the  Church  in  the  woxd 
of  God,  determine  its  nature.  If  those  attributes  can  be  afiirmed  only 
of  a  visible  society,  then  the  Church  must,  as  to  its  essence,  be  such  a 
society.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  belong  only  to  the  communion  of 
saints,  then  none  but  saints  constitute  the  Church.  These  attributes 
must  all  be  included  in  the  idea  of  the  Church.  They  are  but  different 
phases  or  manifestations  of  its  nature.  They  can  all,  therefore,  be 
traced  back  to  it,  or  evolved  from  it.  If  the  Church  is  the  body  of 
those  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
then  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  must  make  the  Church  holy,  visible, 
perpetual,  one,  catholic.  All  these  attributes  must  be  referable  to  that 
one  thing  to  which  the  Church  owes  its  nature.  In  the  fourth  place, 
the  promises  and  prerogatives  which  belong  to  the  Church,  teach  us 
very  plainly  whether  it  is  an  external  society,  or  a  communion  of 
saints.  In  the  fifth  place,  there  is  a  necessary  connection  between  a 
certain  scheme  of  doctrine  and  a  certain  theory  of  the  Church.  It  is 
admitted  that  the  Church  includes  all  who  are  in  Christ,  all  who  are 
saints.  It  is  also  admitted  that  all  who  are  "in  Christ  are  in  the 
Church.  The  question,  therefore,  "Who  are  in  the  Church?  must  de- 
pend upon  the  answer  to  the  question,  "Who  are  in  Christ  ?  or  how  do 
we  become  united  to  him  ? 

Finally,  as  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  way  of  salvation  leads  to 
the  true  theory  of  the  Church,  we  may  expect  to  see  that  theory 
asserted  and  taught  in  all  ages.  However  corrupted  and  overlaid  it 
may  be,  as  other  doctrines  have  been,  it  will  be  found  still  preserved 
and   capable  of  being   recognized  under  all  these  perversions.     The 

iftestimony  of  the  Church  itself  will,  therefore,  be  found  to  be  in  favour 

ijof  the  true  doctrine  as  to  what  the  Church  is. 

The  full  exposition  of  these  topics  would  require  a  treatise  by  itself. 
The  evidence  in  favour  of  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  Cliurch, 
even  in  the  imperfect  manner  in  which  it  is  unfolded  in  this  article,  is 
to  be  sought  through  all  the  following  pages,  and  not  exclusively  under 
one  particular  head.  All  that  is  now  intended  is  to  present  a  general 
view  of  the  principal  arguments  in  support  of  the  doctrine,  that  the 
Church  consists  of  saints  or  true  Christians,  and  that  the  essential  bond 
of  their  union  is  not  external  organization,  but  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

I      Argument  from  the  scriptural  use  of  the  word   Church. — The  word 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  9 

h.7lr^aio.  from  iy./.aXzo),  evocare,  means  an  assembly  or  body  of  men  evoked 
or  called  out  and  together.  It  was  used  to  designate  the  public 
assembly  of  the  people,  among  the  Greeks,  collected  for  the  transaction 
of  business.  It  is  aj^plied  to  the  tumultuous  assembly  called  together 
in  Ephesus,  by  the  outcries  of  Demetrius,  Acts  xix.  39.  It  is  used  for 
those  who  are  called  out  of  the  world,  by  the  gospel,  so  as  to  form  a 
distinct  class.  It  was  not  the  Helotes  at  Athens  who  heard  the  procla- 
mation of  the  heralds,  but  the  people  who  actually  assembled,  who 
constituted  the  iy./.lri<na  of  that  city.  In  like  manner  it  is  not  those  who 
merely  hear  the  call  of  the  gospel,  who  constitute  the  Church,  but  those 
who  obey  the  call.  Thousands  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  the  age  of 
the  apostles,  heard  the  gospel,  received  its  invitations,  but  remained 
Jews  and  idolaters.  Those  only  who  obeyed  the  invitation,  and  sepa- 
rated themselves  from  their  former  connections,  and  entered  into  a  new 
relation  and  communion,  made  up  the  Church  of  that  day.  In  all 
the  various  applications,  therefore,  of  the  word  i/.vlr^a'.ci.  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  find  it  uniformly  used  as  a  callective  term  for  the  xXr^rot 
or  l/^.e/.Tuc,  that  is,  for  those  who  obey  the  gospel  call,  and  who  are 
thus  selected  and  separated,  as  a  distinct  class  from  the  rest  of  the 
world.  Sometimes  the  term  includes  all  who  have  already,  or  who 
shall  hereafter  accept  the  call  of  God.  This  is  the  sense  of  the  word  in 
Eph.  ili.  10,  where  it  is  said  to  be  the  purpose  of  God  to  manifest  unto 
principalities  and  powers,  by  the  Church,  his  manifold  wisdom ;  and 
in  Eph.  V.  25,  26,  where  it  is  said,  that  Christ  loved  the  Church  and 
gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  Avith  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word ;  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a 
glorious  Church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing. 
Sometimes  the  word  is  used  for  the  people  of  God  indefinitely,  as  when 
it  is  said  of  Paul,  he  persecuted  the  Church;  or  when  we  are  com- 
manded to  give  no  offence  to  the  Church.  The  word  is  very  commonly 
used  in  this  sense,  as  when  we  speak  of  the  progress  of  the  Church,  or 
pray  for  the  Church.  It  is  not  any  specific,  organized  body,  that  is 
commonly  intended  in  such  expressions,  but  the  kingdom  of  Christ  in- 
definitely. Sometimes  it  is  used  for  any  number  of  the  called,  collect- 
ively considered,  united  together  by  some  common  bond.  Thus  we 
hear  of  the  Church  in  the  house  of  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  the  Church  in 
the  house  of  Nymphas,  the  Church  in  the  house  of  Philemon;  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  of  Antioch,  of  Corinth,  &c.  In  all  these  cases, 
the  meaning  of  the  word  is  the  same.  It  is  always  used  as  a  collective 
term  for  the  -ArjTot,  either  for  the  whole  number,  or  for  any  portion  of 
them  considered  as  a  whole.  The  Church  of  God  is  the  whole  number 
of  the  elect ;  the  Church  of  Corinth  is  the  whole  number  of  the  called 
in  thatcity.     An  organized  body  may  be  a  Church,  and  their  organi- 


10  CHURCH  POLITY. 

zation  may  be  tlie  reason  for  their  being  considered  as  a  whole  or  as  a 
unit.  But  it  is  not  their  organization  that  makes  them  a  Clmrch. 
The  multitude  of  believers  in  Corinth,  organized  or  dispersed,  is  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  just  as  the  whole  multitude  of  saints  in  heaven  and 
on  earth  is  the  Church  of  God.  It  is  not  organization,  but  evocation, 
the  actual  calling  out  and  separating  from  others,  that  makes  the 
Church. 

The  nature  of  the  Church,  therefore,  must  depend  on  the  nature  of 
the  gospel  call.  If  that  call  is  merely  or  essentially  to  the  outward 
profession  of  certain  doctrines,  or  to  baptism,  or  to  anything  external, 
then  the  Church  must  consist  of  all  who  make  that  profession,  or  are 
baptized.  But  if  the  call  of  the  gospel  is  to  repentance  toward  God, 
and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  then  none  obey  that  call  but  those 
who  repent  and  believe,  and  the  Church  must  consist  of  penitent 
believers.  It  cannot  require  proof  that  the  call  of  the  gospel  is  to 
faith  and  repentance.  The  great  apostle  tells  us  he  received  his  apos- 
tleship  to  the  obedience  of  faith,  among  all  nations,  i.  e.,  to  bring  them 
to  that  obedience  which  consists  in  faith.  He  calls  those  who  heard 
him  to  witness  that  he  had  not  failed  to  testify  both  to  the  Jews  and 
also  to  the  Gentiles,  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  No  one  was  admitted  by  the  apostles  to  the  Church,  or 
recognized  as  of  the  number  of  "the  called,"  who  did  not  profess  faith 
and  repentance,  and  such  has  been  the  law  and  practice  of  the  Church 
ever  since.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  on  this  subject.  What 
the  apostles  did,  and  what  all  ministers,  since  their  day,  have  been 
commissioned  to  do,  is  to  preach  the  gospel ;  to  offer  men  salvation  on 
the  condition  of  faith  and  repentance.  Those  who  obeyed  that  call 
were  baptized,  and  recognized  as  constituent  members  of  the  Church; 
those  who  rejected  it,  who  refused  to  repent  and  believe,  were  not  mem- 
bers, they  were  not  in  fact  "  called,"  and  by  that  divine  vocation  sepa- 
rated from  the  world.  It  would,  therefore,  be  as  unreasonable  to  call 
the  inhabitants  of  a  country  an  army,  because  they  heard  the  call  to 
arms,  as  to  call  all  who  hear  but  do  not  obey  the  gospel,  the  Church. 
The  army  consists  of  those  who  actually  enrol  themselves  as  soldiers ; 
and  the  Church  consists  of  those  who  actually  repent  and  believe,  in 
obedience  to  the  call  of  the  gospel. 

This  conclusion,  to  which  we  are  led  by  the  very  nature  of  the  call 
by  which  the  Church  is  constituted,  is  confirmed  by  the  unvarying  usage 
of  the  New  Testament.  Every  t/./J-rjerta  is  composed  of  the  xXtjtoc,  of 
those  called  out  and  assembled.  But  the  word  xXrjzo:,  as  applied  to 
Christians,  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament,  except  in  reference  to 
true  believers.  If,  therefore,  the  Church  consists  of  "the  called,"  it 
must  consist  of  true  believers.     That  such  is  the  usage  of  the  word 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHUECH.  H 

"  called  •"'  in  the  New  Testament,  is  abundantly  evident.  In  Rom.  i.  6, 
believers  are  designated  the  xX-qvui  Iqaob  Xpiaroo,  Chrlst^s  called  ones. 
In  Rom.  viii.  28,  all  things  are  said  to  work  together  for  good,  tojc 
xa-a  irpod^sGiv  7.krj~ot.(;,  to  the  called  according  to  purpose.  In  1  Cor.  i.  2, 
24,  we  find  the  same  use  of  the  word.  The  gospel  is  said  to  be  foolish- 
ness to  the  Greeks,  and  a  stumbling-block  to  the  Jews,  but  to  "  the 
called,"  it  is  declared  to  be  the  wisdom  of  God  and  power  of  God. 
The  called  are  distinguished  as  those  to  whom  the  gospel  is  effectual. 
Jude  addresses  believers  as  the  sanctified  by  the  Father,  the  preserved 
in  Christ  Jesus,  and  "  called."  Jn  Rev.  xvii.  14,  the  triumphant 
followers  of  the  Lamb  are  called  yJ.rjTu}  xa)  i/.Xsy.-in  -/.at  Trorzot.  The 
doctrinal  usage  of  the  word  xXrjTdi  is,  therefore,  not  a  matter  of  doubt. 
None  but  those  who  truly  repent  and  believe,  are  ever  called  xXtjtoi, 
and,  as  the  ixxkrjffta  consists  of  the  xkyjroc,  the  Church  must  consist  of 
true  believers.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  a  reference  to  analogous 
terms  applied  to  believers.  As  they  are  xXr^rui^  because  the  subjects 
of  a  divine  xX7,ai^^  or  vocation,  so  they  are  hXzx-oc,  Rom.  viii.  23 ; 
1  Pet.  i.  2;  rj^iaff/jLevoc,  1  Cor.  i.  1 ;  Jude  1  ;  Heb.  x.  10 ;  -npoopiafUvreq^ 
Eph.  i.  11;  <ru>%6!ivMn,  1  Cor.  i.  18  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  15;  2  Thess.  ii.  11; 
TszaYiiivot  ££c  ^uiTiv  alu)viov,  Acts  xiii.  48.  All  these  terms  have  refer- 
ence to  that  divine  agency,  to  that  call,  choice,  separation,  or 
appointment,  by  which  men  are  made  true  believers,  and  they  are 
never  api^lied  to  any  other  class. 

The  use  of  th§  cognate  words,  xaMuj  and  xXTiGic,  goes  to  confirm  the 
conclusion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  xXr^ml.  When  used  in  re- 
ference to  the  act  of  God,  in  calling  men  by  the  gospel,  they  always 
designate  a  call  that  is  effectual,  so  that  the  subjects  of  that  vocation 
become  the  true  children  of  God.  Thus,  in  Rom.  viii.  30,  Avhom  he 
calls,  them  he  also  justifies,  whom  he  justifies,  them  he  also  glorifies. 
All  the  called,  therefore,  (the  xX.rizoi,  the  t/.y.X.rjdia,')  are  justified  and 
glorified.  In  Rom.  ix.  24,  the  vessels  of  mercy  are  said  to  be  those 
whom  God  calls.  In  1  Cor.  i.  9,  believers  are  said  to  be  called  into 
fellowshi|)  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  the  same  chapter  the  apostle  says  : 
"Ye  see  your  calling,  brethren,  how  that  not  many  wise  men  after  the 
flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble,  are  called,"  i.  e.  converted 
and  made  the  true  children  of  God.  In  1  Cor.  vii.  the  word  is  used 
nine  times  in  the  same  way.  In  Gal.  i.  15,  Paul  says,  speaking  of 
God,  "who  has  called  me  by  his  grace."  See,  also.  Gal.  v.  8,  13  ;  Eph. 
iv.  4;  Col.  iii.  15;  1  Thess.  ii.  12;  v.  24 ;  1  Tim.  vi.  12;  2  Tim.  i.  9. 
It  is  said  believers  are  called,  not  according  to  their  works,  but  accord- 
ing to  the  purpose  and  grace  of  God,  given  them  in  Christ  Jesus,  before 
the  world  began.  In  Heb.  ix.  5,  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  that  the 
called,  ol  y.=.xXriii.i'M)i,  might  receive  the  eternal  inheritance.     In  1  Pet. 


12  CHURCH  POLITY. 

ii.  9,  believers  are  described  as  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood, 
a  peculiar  people,  whom  God  hath  called  out  of  darkness  into  his  mar- 
vellous light.  In  the  salutation  prefixed  to  his  second  Epistle,  this 
apostle  wishes  all  good  to  those  whom  God  had  called  by  his  glorious 
power. 

In  proof  that  the  word  -/.XT/fft!;  is  constantly  used  in  reference  to  The 
effectual  call  of  God,  see  Rom.  xi.  29;  1  Cor.  i.  26  ;  Ejjh.  i.  18,  iv.  1 ; 
Phil.  iii.  14;  Heb.  iii.  1 ;  2  Pet.  i.  10. 

From  these  considerations  it  is  clear  that  the  ylr^nn  or  called,  are  the 
effectually  called,  those  who  really  obey  the  gospel,  and  by  repentance 
and  faith  are  separated  from  the  world.  And  as  it  is  admitted  that 
the  IxxXf^dia  is  a  collective  term  for  the  y.Xrizoi,  it  follows  that  none  but 
true  believers  constitute  the  Church,  or  that  the  Church  is  the  com- 
munion of  saints.  The  word  in  the  New  Testament  is  never  used  ex- 
cept in  reference  to  the  company  of  true  believers.  This  consideration 
alone  is  sufficient  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  Church. 

To  this  argument  it  is  indeed  objected,  that  as  the  apostles  addressed 
all  the  Christians  of  Antioch,  Corintli,  or  Ephesus,  as  constituting  the 
Church  in  those  cities,  and  as  among  them  there  were  many  hypo- 
crites, therefore  the  word  Church  designates  a  body  of  professors, 
whether  sincere  or  insincere.  The  fact  is  admitted,  that  all  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  true  religion  in  Corinth,  without  reference  to  their 
character,  are  called  the  church  of  Corinth.  This,  however,  is  no 
answer  to  the  preceding  argument.  It  determines  nothing  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  Church.  It  does  not  prove  it  to  be  an  external  society, 
composed  of  sincere  and  insincere  professors  of  the  true  religion.  All 
the  professors  in  Corinth  are  called  saints,  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus, 
the  saved,  the  children  of  God,  the  faithful  believers,  &c.,  &c.  Does 
this  prove  that  there  are  good  and  bad  saints,  holy  and  unholy  sancti- 
fied persons,  believing  and  unbelieving  believers,  or  men  who  are  at 
the  same  time  children  of  God  and  children  of  the  devil  ?  Their  being 
called  believers  does  not  prove  that  they  were  all  believers ;  neither 
does  their  being  called  the  Church  prove  that  they  were  all  members 
of  the  Church.  They  are  designated  according  to  their  profession.  In 
professing  to  be  members  of  the  Church,  they  professed  to  be  believers, 
to  be  saints  and  faithful  brethren,  and  this  proves  that  the  Church 
consists  of  true  believers.  This  will  apjDcar  more  clearly  from  the 
following. 

Argument  from  the  terms  used  as  equivalents  for  the  rvord  Church. 

Those  epistles  in  the  New  Testament  which  are  addressed  to 
Churches,  are  addi'essed  to  believers,  saints,  the  children  of  God.  These 
latter  terms,  therefore,  are  equivalent  to  the  former.  The  conclusion 
to  be  drawn  from  this  fact  is,  that  the  Church  consists  of  believers. 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  I3 

In  the  same  sense  and  in  no  otlier,  in  wliich  infidels  may  be  called 
believers,  and  wicked  men  saints,  in  the  same  sense  may  they  be  said 
to  be  included  in  the  Church.  If  they  are  not  really  believers,  they 
are  not  the  Church.  They  are  not  constituent  members  of  the  com- 
pany of  believers. 

The  force  of  this  argument  will  appear  from  a  reference  to  the  salu- 
tations prefixed  to  these  epistles.  The  epistle  to  the  Romans,  for 
example,  is  addressed  to  "  the  called  of  Jesus  Christ,"  "  the  beloved  of 
God,"  "  called  to  be  saints."  The  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  are 
addressed  "  to  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth."  Who  are 
they  ?  "  The  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,"  the  wor- 
shippers of  Christ.  The  Ephesian  Church  is  addressed  as  "  the  saints 
who  are  in  Ephesus,  and  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  Philip- 
pians  are  called  "  saints  and  faithful  brethren  in  Christ."  Peter  ad- 
di'essed  his  first  Epistle  to  "  the  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience 
and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ ; "  i.  e.,  to  those  who,  being 
elected  to  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  are  sanctified 
by  the  Spirit.  His  second  Epistle  is  directed  to  those  who  had  ob- 
tained like  precious  faith  with  the  apostle  himself,  through  (or  in)  the 
righteousness  of  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 

From  this  collation  it  appears,  that  to  call  any  body  of  men  a 
Church,  is  to  call  them  saints,  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  elected  to  obe- 
dience and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  partakers  of  the  same 
precious  faith  with  the  apostles,  the  beloved  of  God,  and  faithful  breth- 
ren. The  inference  from  this  fact  is  inevitable.  The  Church  consists 
of  those  to  whom  these  terms  are  applicable. 

The  only  way  by  which  this  argument  can  be  evaded  is,  by  sajang 
that  the  faith  here  spoken  of  is  mere  speculative  faith,  the  sanctification 
intended  is  mere  external  consecration ;  the  sonship  referred  to,  is 
merely  adoption  to  external  privileges,  or  a  church  state.  This  objec- 
tion, however,  is  completely  obviated  by  the  contents  of  these  epistles. 
The  persons  to  whom  these  terms  are  applied,  and  who  are  represented 
as  constituting  the  Church,  are  described  as  really  holy  in  heart  and 
life  ;  not  mere  professors  of  the  true  faith,  but  true  believers  ;  not  merely 
the  recipients  of  certain  privileges,  but  the  children  of  God  and  heirs 
of  eternal  life. 

The  members  of  the  Church  in  Corinth  are  declared  to  be  in 
fellowship  with  Jesus  Christ,  chosen  of  God,  inhabited  by  his 
Spirit,  washed,  sanctified,  and  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.  That  the  faith  which  Paul  attributes 
to  the  members  of  the  Church  in  Rome,  and  the  sonship  of  which  he 
represents  them  as  partakers,  were  not  speculative  or  external,  is  evi- 


i/ 


14  CHURCH  POLITY. 

dent,  because  lie  says,  those  who  believe  have  peace  with  God,  rejoice 
in  hope  of  his  glory  and  have  his  love  shed  abroad  in  iheir  hearts. 
Those  who  are  in  Christ,  he  says,  are  not  only  free  from  condemnation, 
but  walk  after  the  Spirit,  and  are  spiritually- minded.  Being  the  sons 
of  God  they  are  led  by  the  Spirit,  they  have  the  spirit  of  adoption,  and 
are  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ  of  a  heavenly  inheritance.  The  meln- 
bers  of  the  Church  in  Ephesus  were  faithful  brethren  in  Christ  Jesus, 
sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  quickened  and  raised  from 
spiritual  death,  and  made  to  sit  in  heavenly  places.  All  those  in  Co- 
losse  Avho  are  designated  as  the  Church,  are  described  as  reconciled 
unto  God,  the  recipients  of  Christ,  who  were  complete  in  him,  all  whose 
sins  are  pardoned.  The  Church  in  Thessalonica  consisted  of  those 
whose  work  of  faith,  and  labour  of  love,  and  patience  of  hope,  Paul  joy- 
fully remembered,  and  of  whose  election  of  God  he  was  well  assured. 
They  were  children  of  the  light  and  of  the  day,  Avhom  God  had  ap- 
pointed to  the  obtaining  of  salvation  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  churches  to  whom  Peter  wrote  consisted  of  those  who  had  been 
begotten  again  to  a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the 
dead.  Though  they  had  not  seen  the  Saviour,  they  loved  him,  and  be- 
lieving on  him,  rejoiced  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory.  They 
had  purified  their  souls  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  having 
been  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the 
word  of  God.  Those  whom  John  recognized  as  members  of  the  Church 
he  says  had  received  an  anointing  of  the  Holy  one,  which  abode  with 
them,  teaching  them  the  truth.  They  were  the  sons  of  God,  who  had 
overcome  the  world,  who  believing  in  Christ  had  eternal  life. 

From  all  this,  it  is  evident  that  the  terms,  believers,  saints,  children 
of  God,  the  sanctified,  the  justified,  and  the  like,  are  equivalent  to  the 
collective  term  Church,  so  that  any  company  of  men  addressed  as  a 
Church,  are  always  addressed  as  saints,  faithful  brethren,  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  children  of  God.  The  Church,  therefore,  consists 
exclusively  of  such.  That  these  terms  do  not  express  merely  a  pro- 
fessed faith  or  external  consecration  is  evident,  because  those  to  whom 
they  are  applied  are  declared  to  be  no  longer  unjust,  extortioners, 
thieves,  drunkards,  covetous,  revilers,  or  adulterers,  but  to  be  led  by  the 
Spirit  to  the  belief  and  obedience  of  the  truth.  The  Church,  therefore, 
consists  of  believers ;  and  if  it  consists  of  believers,  it  consists  of  those 
who  have  peace  with  God,  and  have  overcome  the  world. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  all  the  members  of  the 
Christian  societies  in  Rome,  Corinth,  and  Ephesus,  arc  addressed  as 
believers,  that  they  all  had  true  faith.  But  we  can  infer,  that  since 
what  is  said  of  them  is  said  of  them  as  believers,  it  had  no  applica- 
tion to  those  who  were  without  faith.     In  like  manner,  though  all  are 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  15 

addressed  as  belonging  to  the  Church,  what  is  said  of  the  Church  had 
no  application  to  those  who  were  not  really  its  members.  Addressing 
a  body  of  professed  believers,  as  believers,  does  not  prove  them  to  be 
all  sincere ;  neither  does  addressing  a  body  of  men  as  a  Church,  prove 
that  they  all  belong  to  the  Church.  In  both  cases  they  are  addressed 
according  to  their  profession.  If  it  is  a  fatal  error  to  transfer  what  is 
said  in  Scripture  of  believers,  to  mere  professors,  to  apply  to  nominal 
what  is  said  of  true  Christians,  it  is  no  less  fatal  to  apply  what  is  said 
of  the  Church  to  those  who  are  only  by  profession  its  members.  It  is 
no  more  proper  to  infer  that  the  Church  consists  of  the  promiscuous 
multitude  of  sincere  and  insincere  professors  of  the  true  faith,  from  the 
fact  that  all  the  professors,  good  and  bad,  in  Corinth,  are  called  the 
Church,  than  it  would  be  to  infer  that  they  were  all  saints  and  chil- 
dren of  God,  because  they  are  all  so  denominated.  It  is  enough  to 
determine  the  true  nature  of  the  Church,  that  none  are  ever  addressed 
as  its  members,  who  are  not,  at  the  same  time,  addressed  as  true  saints 
and  sincere  believers. 

Argument  from  the  descriptions  of  the  Church. — The  descriptions  of  'j ,     i-^ 
the  Church  given  in  the  word  of  God,  apply  to  none  but  true  believers,  |j 
and  therefore  true  believers  constitute  the  Church.     These  descriptions  /' 
relate  either  to  the  relation  which  the  Church  sustains  to  Christ,  or  to  ' ; 
the  character  of  its  members,  or  to  its  future  destiny.     The  argument  i 
is,  that  none  but  true  believers  bear  that  relation  to  Christ,  which  the  / 1 
Church  is  said  to  sustain  to  him  ;  none  but  believers  possess  the  cha- 
racter ascribed  to  members  of  the  Church ;  and  none  but  believers  are 
heirs  of  those  blessings  which  are  in  reserve  for  the  Church.    If  all  this 
is  so,  it  follows  that  the  Church  consists  of  those  who  truly  believe. 
It  will  not  be  necessary  to  keep  these  points  distinct,  because  in  many 
passages  of  Scripture,  the  relation  which  the  Church  bears  to  Christ, 
the  character  of  its  members,   and  its  destiny,  are  all  brought  into 
view. 

1.  The  Church  is  described  as  the  body  of  Christ.  Eph.  i.  22 ;  iv.  I 
15,  16;  Col.  i.  18.  The  relation  expressed  by  this  designation,  in- 
cludes subjection,  dependence,  participation  of  the  same  life,  sympathy, 
and  community.  Those  who  are  the  body  of  Christ,  are  dependent 
upon  him  and  subject  to  him,  as  the  human  body  to  its  head.  They 
are  partakers  of  his  life.  The  human  body  is  animated  by  one  soul, 
and  has  one  vital  principle.  This  is  the  precise  truth  Avhich  the 
Scriptures  teach  in  reference  to  the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ.  It 
is  his  body,  because  animated  by  his  Spirit,  so  that  if  any  man  have 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,  Kom.  viii.  9  ;  for  it  is  by  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  The  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  is  the  indwell- 


16  CHUECH  POLITY. 

ing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  are  therefore  called  Tzveuimzuoi,  men 
having  the  Spirit.  They  are  led  by  the  Spirit.  They  are  spiritually- 
minded.  All  this  is  true  of  sincere  believers  alone.  It  is  not  true  of 
the  promiscuous  body  of  professors,  nor  of  the  members  of  any  visible 
society,  as  such,  and  therefore  no  such  visible  society  is  the  body  of 
Christ.  What  is  said  of  the  body  of  Christ,  is  not  true  of  any  external 
organized  corporation  on  earth,  and,  therefore,  the  two  cannot  be 
identical. 

Again,  as  the  body  sympathizes  with  the  head,  and  the  members 
sympathize  one  with  another,  so  all  the  members  of  Christ's  body  sym- 
pathize with  him,  and  with  each  other.  This  sympathy  is  not  merely 
a  duty,  it  is  a  fact.  Where  it  does  not  exist,  there  membership  in 
Christ's  body  does  not  exist.  All,  therefore,  who  are  members  of 
Christ's  body  feel  his  glory  to  be  their  own,  his  triumph  to  be  their 
victory.  They  love  those  whom  he  loves,  and  they  hate  what  he  hates. 
Finally,  as  the  human  head  and  body  have  a  common  destiny,  so  have 
Christ  and  his  Church.  As  it  partakes  of  his  life,  it  shall  participate 
in  his  glory.  The  members  of  his  body  suffer  with  him  here,  and  shall 
reign  with  him  hereafter. 

It  is  to  degrade  and  destroy  the  gospel  to  apply  this  description  of 
the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  to  the  mass  of  nominal  Christians, 
the  visible  Church,  which  consists  of  "  all  sorts  of  men."  No  such 
visible  society  is  animated  by  his  Spirit,  is  a  partaker  of  hia  life,  and 
heir  of  his  glory.  It  is  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between  holiness 
and  sin,  between  the  Church  and  the  world,  between  the  children  of 
God  and  the  children  of  the  devil,  to  apply  what  the  Bible  says  of  the 
body  of  Christ  to  any  promiscuous  society  of  saints  and  sinners. 
'  2.  The  Church  is  declared  to  be  the  temple  of  God,  because  he 
dwells  in  it  by  his  Spirit.  That  temple  is  composed  of  living  stones. 
1  Pet.  ii.  4,  5.  Know  ye  not,  says  the  apostle  to  the  Corinthians,  that 
your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  in  you  ?  1  Cor. 
vi.  19.  The  inference  from  this  description  of  the  Church  is,  that  it  is 
composed  of  those  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  ;  but  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwells  only  in  true  believers,  and  therefore  the  Church  consists 
|0f  such  believers. 

3.  The  Church  is  the  family  of  God.  Those,  therefore,  who  are  not 
the  children  of  God  are  not  members  of  his  Church.  The  wicked  arc 
declared  to  be  the  children  of  the  devil ;  they  therefore  cannot  be  the 
children  of  God.  Those  only  are  his  children  who  have  the  spirit  of 
adoption ;  and  being  children,  are  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ.     Rom.  viii.  16,  17. 

4.  The  Church  is  the  flock  of  Christ ;  its  members  are  his  sheep. 
He  knows  them,  leads  them,  feeds  them,  and  lays  down  his  life  for 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHUECH.  I7 

them.  They  were  given  to  him  by  the  Father,  and  no  one  is  able  to 
pluck  them  out  of  his  hand.  They  know  his  voice  and  follow  him 
but  a  stranger  they  will  not  follow.  John,  x.  This  description  of  the 
Church  as  the  flock  of  Christ,  is  applicable  only  to  saints  or  true 
believers,  and  therefore  they  alone  constitute  his  Church. 

5.  The  Church  is  the  bride  of  Christ ;  the  object  of  his  peculiar  love, 
for  which  he  gave  himself,  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a 
glorious  Church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing.  No 
man,  saith  the  Scripture,  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  nourisheth 
and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church.  Eph.  v.  25-30.  It 
is  not  true,  according  to  the  Bible,  that  any  but  true  Christians  are  the 
objects  of  this  peculiar  love  of  Christ,  and  therefore  they  alone  consti- 
tute that  Church  which  is  his  bride. 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  then,  the  Oiurch  consists  of  those  who 
are  in  Christ,  to  whom  he  is  made  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification, 
and  redemption ;  of  those  who  are  his  body,  in  whom  he  dwells  by  his 
Spirit ;  of  those  who  are  the  family  of  God,  the  children  of  his  grace ; 
of  those  who,  as  living  stones,  compose  that  temple  in  which  God 
dwells,  and  who  rest  on  that  elect,  tried,  precious  corner-stone,  which 
God  has  laid  in  Zion ;  of  those  who  are  the  bride  of  Christ,  purchased 
by  his  blood,  sanctified  by  his  word,  sacraments,  and  Spirit,  to  be  pre- 
sented at  last  before  the  presence  of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy. 
These  descriptions  of  the  Church  are  inapplicable  to  any  external 
visible  society  as  such ;  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Church  of 
England,  or  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  only  Church  of  which 
these  things  are  true,  is  the  communion  of  saints,  the  body  of  true 
Christians. 

Arguments  from  the  attributes  of  the  Church. — The  great  question  at 
issue  on  this  whole  subject  is,  whether  we  are  to  conceive  of  the 
Church,  in  its  essential  character,  as  an  external  society,  or  as  the 
communion  of  saints.  One  method  of  deciding  this  question,  is  by  a 
reference  to  the  acknowledged  attributes  of  the  Church.  If  those 
attributes  belong  only  to  a  visible  society,  then  the  Church  must  be 
such  a  society.  But  if  they  can  be  predicated  only  of  the  communion 
of  saints,  then  the  Church  is  a  spiritual  body,  and  not  an  external, 
visible  society. 

The  Cliurch  is  the  body  of  Christ,  in  which  he  dwells  by  his  Spirit. 
It  is  in  virtue  of  this  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  that  the  Church  is  what 
she  is,  and  all  that  she  is.»  To  this  source  her  holiness,  unity,  and  per- 
petuity, are  to  be  referred,  and  under  these  attributes  all  others  are 
comprehended. 

First,  then,  as  to  holiness.     The   Church  considered  as  the  com- 
munion of  saints,  is  holy.     "Where  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  is  holi- 
2 


18  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

ness.  If,  therefore,  the  Spirit  dwells  in  the  Claurch,  the  Church  must 
be  holy,  not  merely  nominally,  but  really ;  not  merely  because  her 
founder,  her  doctrines,  her  institutions  are  holy,  but  because  her  mem- 
bers are  personally  holy.  They  are,  and  must  be,  holy  brethren, 
saints,  the  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  beloved  of  God.  They  are  led  by 
the  Spirit,  and  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  The  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit  produces  this  personal  holiness,  and  that  separation  from  the 
world  and  consecration  to  God,  which  make  the  Church  a  holy  nation, 
a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works.  The  Church  is  defined  to  be 
a  company  of  believers,  the  ccctus  fidellum.  To  say  that  the  Church  is 
holy,  is  to  say  that  that  company  of  men  and  women  who  compose  the 
Church,  is  holy.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  "  all  sorts  of  men," 
thieves,  murderers,  drunkards,  the  unjust,  the  rapacious,  and  the  covet- 
ous, enter  into  the  composition  of  a  society  whose  essential  attribute  is 
holiness.  To  say  that  a  man  is  unjust,  is  to  say  that  he  is  not  holy,  and 
to  say  that  he  is  not  holy,  is  to  say  that  he  is  not  one  of  a  company  of 
saints.  If  then  we  conceive  of  the  Church  as  the  communion  of  saints,  as 
the  body  of  Christ,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  as  the  source  of  its 
life,  we  see  that  the  Church  is  and  must  be  holy.  It  must  be  inwardly 
pure,  that  is,  its  members  must  be  regenerated  men,  and  it  must  be 
really  separated  from  the  world,  and  consecrated  to  God.  These  are 
the  two  ideas  included  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  holiness,  and  in  both 
these  senses  the  Church  is  truly  holy.  But  in  neither  sense  can  holi- 
ness be  predicated  of  any  external  visible  society  as  such.  No  such 
society  is  really  pure,  nor  is  it  really  separated  from  the  world,  and 
devoted  to  God.  This  is  evident  from  the  most  superficial  observation. 
It  is  plain  that  neither  the  Roman,  the  Greek,  the  English,  nor  the 
Prcsb}i;erian  Church,  falls  within  the  definition  of  the  Church  as  the 
ccetus  sanctorum,  or  company  of  believers.  No  one  of  these  societies  is 
holy,  they  are  all  more  or  less  corrupt  and  worldly.  The  church  state 
does  not  in  the  least  depend  on  the  moral  character  of  their  members, 
if  the  Church  is  essentially  an  external  society.  Such  a  society  may 
sink  to  the  lowest  degree  of  corruption,  and  yet  be  a  church,  provided 
it  retain  its  external  integrity.  Of  no  such  a  society,  however,  is  holiness 
an  attribute,  and  all  history  and  daily  observation  concur  in  their 
testimony  as  to  this  fact.  If,  therefore,  no  community  of  Avhich  holi- 
ness is  not  an  attribute  can  be  the  Church,  it  follows,  that  no  external 
society,  composed  of  "  all  sorts  bf  men,"  can  be  the  holy,  catholic 
Church.  Those,  therefore,  who  regard  th5  Church  as  an  external 
society,  are  forced  to  deny  that  the  Church  is  holy.  They  all  assert 
that  it  is  composed  of  hypocrites  and  unrenewed  men,  as  well  as  of 
saints.  Thus,  for  example,  Bcllarmine  defines  the  Church  to  be  "  the 
society  of  men  united  by  the  profession  of  the  same  Christian  faith,  and 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  19 

the  communion  of  the  same  sacraments,  under  the  government  of 
legitimate  pastors,  and  especially  of  the  only  vicar  of  Christ  here  on 
earth,  the  Roman  Pontiff,"  *  By  the  first  clause  of  this  definition  he 
excludes  all  who  do  not  profess  the  true  faith,  such  as  Jews,  Moham- 
medans, Pagans,  and  heretics ;  by  the  second,  all  the  unbaptized  and 
the  excommunicated ;  by  the  third,  all  schismatics,  i.  e.,  all  who  do  not 
submit,  to  legitimate  pastors,  (prelates,)  especially  to  the  Pope.  All 
other  classes  of  men,  he  adds,  are  included  in  the  Church,  etiamsi 
reprohi,  scelesti  et  impii  sint.  The  main  point  of  difference  between  the 
Romish  and  Protestant  theories  of  the  Church,  he  says,  is  that  the 
latter  requires  internal  virtues  in  order  to  Church  membership,  but  the 
former  requires  nothing  beyond  outward  profession,  for  the  Church,  he 
adds,  is  just  as  much  an  external  society  as  the  Roman  people,  the 
kingdom  of  France,  or  the  republic  of  Venice,  f 

The  Oxford  theory  of  the  Church  differs  from  the  Romish  only  in 
excluding  subjection  to  the  Pope  as  one  of  its  essential  characteristics. 
The  Church  is  defined  to  be  "  The  whole  society  of  Christians  through- 
out the  world,  including  all  those  who  profess  their  belief  in  Christ,  and 
who  are  subject  to  lawful  pastors."  |  By  Christians,  in  this  definition, 
are  meant  nominal,  or  professed  Christians.  According  to  this  \'iew, 
neither  inward  regeneration,  nor  "  visible  sanctity  of  life,  is  requisite 
for  admission  to  the  Church  of  Christ."  "  The  Scriptures  and  the  imi- 
versal  Church  appoint,"  it  is  said,  "  only  one  mode  in  which  Christians 
are  to  be  made  members  of  the  Church.  It  is  baptism,  which  renders 
us,  by  di^'ine  right,  members  of  the  Church,  and  entitles  us  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  faithful."  §  Again,  when  speaking  of  baptism,  which 
thus  secures  a  di\dne  right  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  faithful,  it  is 
said,  there  is  no  "  mention  of  regeneration,  sanctity,  real  piety,  visible 
or  invisible,  as  prerequisite  to  its  reception."  ||  Holiness,  therefore,  is 
denied  to  be  an  attribute  of  the  Church  in  any  proper  sense  of  the 
term.  This  denial  is  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  regarding  the 
Church  as  a  visible  society,  analogous  to  an  earthly  kingdom.  As 
holiness  is  not  necessary  to  citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of  Spain,  or 

*  Lib.  TIT,  c.  ii  col.  108.  Ccetum  hominum  ejusdem  Chrtsiiance  fidei  professione,  et 
eorundem  sacramentorum  communione  eolligatum,  sub  regimine  legitimorum  pastoruni, 
ac  pracipue  unius  Christi  in  terris  vicarii  Romani  Pontificis. 

f  Nos  autem  .  .  .  non  putamus  requiri  ullam  internam  virtutem,  sed  tantum  profes- 
sionemfidei  et  sacramentorum  communionem,  quae  sensu  ipso  percipitur.  Ecclesia,  enim 
est  ccetiLS  hominum  ita  visibilis  et  palpabilis,  ut  est  coetus  populi  Itomani,  vel  regnum 
Gdliae,  aut  respublica  Venetorum. — Ibid.  col.  109. 

X  Palmer  on  the  Church,  Amer.  edition,  vol.  i.  p.  28. 

2  Palmer.     Vol.  i.  page  144.  |I  Palmer.     Vol.  i.  p.  377- 


20  CHUECH  POLITY. 

republic  of  Venice,  holiness  is  not  an  attribute  of  either  of  those  com- 
munities. Neither  Spain  nor  Venice  is,  as  such,  holy.  And  if  the 
Church,  in  its  true  essential  character,  be  a  visible  society,  of  which 
men  become  members  by  mere  profession,  and  without  holiness,  then 
holiness  is  not  an  attribute  of  the  Church.  But,  as  by  common  consent 
the  Church  is  holy,  a  theory  of  its  nature  which  excludes  this  attribute, 
must  be  both  unscriptural  and  uncatholic,  and  therefore  false. 

No  false  theory  can  be  consistent.  If,  therefore,  the  theory  of  the 
Church  which  represents  it  as  an  external  society  of  professors  is  false, 
we  may  expect  to  see  its  advocates  falling  continually  into  suicidal  con- 
tradictions. The  whole  Romish  or  ritual  system  is  founded  on  the 
assumption,  that  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  ascribed  m  Scripture 
to  the  Church,  belong  to  the  visible  Church,  irrespective  of  the  charac- 
ter of  its  members.  Nothing  is  required  for  admission  into  that  society, 
but  profession  of  its  faith,  reception  of  its  sacraments,  and  submission 
to  its  legitimate  rulers.  If  a  whole  nation  of  Pagans  or  Mohammedans 
should  submit  to  these  external  conditions,  they  Avould  be  true  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  though  ignorant  of  its  doctrines,  though  destitute 
of  faith,  and  sunk  in  moral  corruption.  To  this  society  the  attributes 
of  holiness,  unity  and  perpetuity,  belong ;  this  society,  thus  constituted 
of  "  all  sorts  of  men,"  has  the  prerogative  authoritatively  to  teach,  and 
to  bind  and  loose ;  and  the  teaching  and  discipline  of  this  society, 
Christ  has  promised  t©  ratify  in  heaven.  The  absurdities  and  enormi- 
ties, however,  which  flow  from  this  theory,  are  so  glaring  and  atrocious, 
that  few  of  its  advocates  have  the  nerve  to  look  them  in  the  face.  As 
we  have  seen,  it  is  a  contradiction  to  call  a  society  composed  of  "  all 
sorts  of  men,"  holy.  Those  who  teach,  therefore,  that  the  Church  is 
such  a  society,  sometimes  say  that  holiness  is  not  a  condition  of  mem- 
bership ;  in  other  words,  is  not  an  attribute  of  the  Church ;  and  some- 
times, that  none  but  the  holy  are  really  in  the  Church,  that  the  wicked 
are  not  its  true  members.  But,  if  this  be  so,  as  holiness  has  its  seat  in 
the  heart,  no  man  can  tell  certainly  who  are  holy,  and  therefore  no 
one  can  tell  who  are  the  real  members  of  the  Church,  or  who  actually 
constitute  the  body  of  Christ,  which  we  are  required  to  join  and  to 
obey.  The  Church,  therefore,  if  it  consists  only  of  the  holy,  is  not  an 
external  society,  and  the  whole  ritual  system  falls  to  the  ground. 

Neither  Romish  nor  Anglican  writers  can  escape  from  these  contra- 
dictions. Augustin  says,  the  Church  is  a  living  body,  in  which  there 
are  both  a  soul  and  body.  Some  are  members  of  the  Church  in  both 
respects,  being  united  to  Christ,  as  well  externally  as  internally. 
These  are  the  living  members  of  the  Church ;  others  are  of  the  soul, 
but  not  of  the  body — that  is,  they  have  faith  and  love,  without  external 
communion  with  the  Church.     Others,  again,  are  of  the  body  and  not 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  21 

of  the  soul — tliat  is,  they  have  no  true  faith.  These  last,  he  says,  are 
as  the  hairs,  or  nails,  or  evil  humours  of  the  human  body.*  According 
to  Augustin,  then,  the  wicked  are  not  true  members  of  the  Church ;  their 
relation  to  it  is  altogether  external.  They  no  more  make  up  the 
Church,  than  the  scurf  or  hair  on  the  surface  of  the  skin  make  up  the 
human  body.  This  representation  is  in  entire  accordance  with  the 
Protestant  doctrine,  that  the  Church  is  a  communion  of  saints,  and  that 
none  but  the  holy  are  its  true  members.  It  expressly  contradicts  the 
Romish  and  Oxford  theory,  that  the  Church  consists  of  all  sorts  of 
men ;  and  that  the  baptized,  no  matter  what  their  character,  if  they 
submit  to  their  legitimate  pastors,  are  by  divine  right  constituent  por- 
tions of  the  Church  ;  and  that  none  who  do  not  receive  the  sacraments, 
and  who  are  not  thus  subject,  can  be  members  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
Yet  this  doctrine  of  Augustin,  so  inconsistent  with  their  own,  is  con- 
ceded by  Romish  writers.  They  speak  of  the  relation  of  the  wicked  to 
the  Church  as  merely  external  or  nominal,  as  a  dead  branch  to  a  tree, 
or  as  chaff  to  the  wheat.  So,  also,  does  Mr.  Palmer;f  who  says :  "  It  is 
generally  allowed  that  the  wicked  belong  only  externally  to  the 
Church."  Again :  "  That  the  ungodly,  whether  secret  or  manifest,  do 
not  really  belong  to  the  Church,  considered  as  to  its  invisible  charac- 
ter— namely,  as  consisting  of  its  essential  and  permanent  members,  the 
elect,  predestinated,  and  sanctified,  who  are  known  to  God  only,  I 
admit."  |  That  is,  he  admits  his  whole  theory  to  be  untenable.  He 
admits,  after  all,  that  the  wicked  "  do  not  really  belong  to  the  Church," 
and  therefore,  that  the  real  or  true  Church  consists  of  the  sanctified  in 
Christ  Jesus.  What  is  said  of  the  wheat  is  surely  not  true  of  the 
chaff";  and  what  the  Bible  says  of  the  Church  is  not  true  of  the  wicked. 
Yet  all  Romanism,  all  ritualism,  rests  on  the  assumption,  that  what  is 
said  of  the  wheat  is  true  of  the  chaflT — that  what  is  said  of  the  com- 
munion of  saints,  is  true  of  a  body  composed  of  all  sorts  of  men.  The 
argument,  then,  here  is,  that,  as  holiness  is  an  attribute  of  the  Cliurch, 
no  body  which  is  not  holy  can  be  the  Church.  No  external  visible 
society,  as  such,  is  holy;  and,  therefore,  the  Church,  of  which  the 
Scriptures  speak,  is  not  a  visible  society,  but  the  communion  of  saints. 
The  same  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  other  attributes  of  the 
Church.  It  is  conceded  that  unity  is  one  of  its  essential  attributes. 
The  Church  is  one,  as  there  is,  and  can  be  but  one  body  of  Christ. 
The  Church  as  the  communion  of  saints  is  one ;  as  an  external  society 
it  is  not  one ;  therefore,  the  Church  is  the  company  of  believers,  and 
not  an  external  society. 

*  In  Breviculo  CoUationis,     Collat.  Hi. 
t  On  the  Church.     Vol.  i.  p.  28.  %  Ibid.  p.  143. 


22  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  unity  of  the  Church  is  threefold.  1.  Spiritual;  the  unity  of 
faith  and  of  communion.  2.  Comprehensive ;  the  Church  is  one  as  it 
is  catholic,  embracing  all  the  people  of  God.  3.  Historical ;  it  is  the 
same  Church  in  all  ages.  In  all  these  senses,  the  Church  considered 
as  the  communion  of  saints,  is  one ;  in  no  one  of  these  senses  can  unity 
be  predicated  of  the  Church  as  visible. 

The  Church,  considered  as  the  communion  of  saints,  is  one  in  faith. 
The  Spirit  of  God  leads  his  peoj^le  into  all  truth.  He  takes  of  the 
things  of  Christ  and  shows  them  unto  them.  They  are  all  taught  of 
God.  The  anointing  which  they  have  received  abideth  with  them, 
and  teacheth  them  all  things,  and  is  truth.  1  John  ii.  27.  Under 
this  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  promised  to  all  believers,  and 
which  is  with  and  by  the  word,  they  are  all  led  to  the  knowledge  and 
belief  of  all  necessary  truth.  And  within  the  limits  of  such  necessary 
truths,  all  true  Christians,  the  whole  ccetus  sanctorum,  or  body  of 
believers,  are  one.  In  all  ages  and  in  all  nations,  wherever  there 
are  true  Christians,  you  find  they  have,  as  to  all  essential  matters,  one 
and  the  same  faith. 

The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Spirit  of  love  as  well  as  of  truth,  and  there- 
fore all  those  in  whom  he  dwells  are  one  in  afiection  as  well  as  in  faith. 
They  have  the  same  inward  experience,  the  same  conviction  of  sin,  the 
same  repentance  toward  God  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
same  love  of  holiness,  and  desire  after  conformity  to  the  image  of  God. 
There  is,  therefore,  an  inward  fellowship  or  congeniality  between  them, 
which  proves  them  to  be  one  spirit.  They  all  stand  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  God  and  Christ ;  they  constitute  one  family,  of  which  God  is 
the  Father ;  one  kingdom,  of  which  Christ  is  the  Lord.  They  have  a 
common  interest  and  common  expectation.  The  triumph  of  the 
Redeemer's  kingdom  is  the  common  joy  and  triumiDh  of  all  his  people. 
They  have,  therefore,  the  fellowship  which  belongs  to  the  subjects  of 
the  same  king,  to  the  children  of  the  same  family,  and  to  the  members 
of  the  same  body.  If  one  member  suffers,  all  the  members  suffer  with 
it ;  and  if  one  member  rejoices,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it.  This 
sympathy  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Those 
who  do  not  possess  this  affection  and  fellow-feeling  for  his  members,  are 
none  of  his.  This  inward  spiritual  communion  expresses  itself  out- 
wardly, not  only  in  acts  of  kindness,  but  especially  and  appropriately 
in  all  acts  of  Christian  fellowship.  True  believers  are  disposed  to 
recognize  each  other  as  such,  to  unite  as  Christians  in  the  service  of 
their  common  Lord,  and  to  make  one  joint  profession  before  the  world 
of  their  allegiance  to  him.  In  this,  the  highest  and  truest  sense,  the 
Church  is  one.  It  is  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus.  He  dwells  by  his 
Spirit  in  all  his  members,  and  thus  unites  them  in  one  living  whole. 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHUKCH.  23 

leading  all  to  tlie  belief  of  the  same  truths,  and  binding  all  in  the  bond 
of  peace.  This  is  the  unity  of  which  the  ai:)0stle  speaks  :  "  There  is 
one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your 
calling ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all."  Such  is  the  unity 
which  belongs  to  the  Church ;  it  does  not  belong  to  any  external 
society,  and  therefore  no  such  society  can  be  the  Church  to  which  the 
attributes  and  prerogatives  of  the  body  of  Christ  belong. 

In  proof  that  spiritual  unity  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  external 
Church,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  obvious  fact,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  ground  and  bond  of  that  unity,  does  not  dwell  in  all  the 
members  of  that  Church.  Wherever  he  dwells  there  are  the  fruits  of 
holiness,  and  as  those  fruits  are  not  found  in  all  who  profess  to  be 
Christians,  the  Spirit  does  not  dwell  in  them  so  as  to  unite  them  to  the 
body  of  Christ.  The  consequence  is,  they  have  neither  the  unity  of 
faith  nor  of  communion. 

As  to  the  Unity  of  faith,  it  is  undeniable  that  all  Christian  societies 
do  not  even  j^rofess  the  same  faith.  While  all  unite  in  certain  doc- 
trines, they  each  profess  or  deny  what  the  others  regard  as  fatal  error 
or  necessary  truth.  The  Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant  Churches  do 
not  regard  themselves  as  one  in  faith.  Each  declares  the  others  to  be 
heretical.  But  this  is  not  all.  Unity  of  faith  does  not  exist  within 
the  pale  of  these  several  churches.  In  each  of  them  all  grades  and 
kinds  of  doctrine,  from  atheism  to  orthodoxy,  are  entertained.  No  one 
doubts  this.  It  would  be  preposterous  to  assert  that  all  the  members 
of  the  Latin  Church  hold  the  public  faith  of  that  society.  The  great 
body  of  them  do  not  know  what  that  faith  is,  and  multitudes  among 
them  are  infidels.  Neither  can  any  one  jDretend  that  the  standards 
of  the  English,  Dutch,  or  Prussian  Church,  express  the  faith  of  all 
their  members.  It  is  a  notorious  and  admitted  fact,  that  every  form 
of  religious  faith  and  infidelity  is  to  be  found  among  the  members  of 
those  societies.  Unity  of  faith,  therefore,  is  one  of  the  attributes  of  the 
true  Church,  which,  with  no  show  of  truth  or  reason,  can  be  predicated 
of  any  external  society  calling  itself  the  Church  of  God. 

The  case  is  no  less  plain  with  regard  to  communion.  The  societies 
constituting  the  visible  Church,  do  not  maintain  Christian  communion. 
They  do  not  all  recognize  each  other  as  brethren,  nor  do  they  unite  in 
the  offices  of  Christian  worship  and  fellowship.  On  the  contrary,  they, 
in  many  cases,  mutually  excommunicate  each  other.  The  Greek, 
Latin,  and  Protestant  Churches,  each  stands  aloof.  They  are  separate 
communions,  having  no  ecclesiastical  fellowship  whatever.  This  kind 
of  separation,  however,  is  not  so  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  commu- 
nion of  saints,  as  the  absence  of  brotherly  love,  and  the  presence  of  all 


24  cnuR(^n  tolity. 

unholy  affections,  which  characterize  to  so  great  an  extent  these  nomi- 
nal Christians.  If  it  be  true  that  there  is  a  warm  sympathy,  a  real 
brotherly  affection,  between  all  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  then 
nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  great  mass  of  nominal  Christians 
are  not  members  of  that  body.  The  unity  of  the  Spirit,  the  bond  of 
perfectncss,  true  Christian  love,  does  not  unite  the  members  of  any 
extended  visible  society  into  one  holy  brotherhood ;  and  therefore  no 
such  society  is  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Romanists  answer  this  argument  by  vehement  .assertion.  They  first 
degrade  the  idea  of  unity  into  that  of  outward  connection.  So  that 
men  profess  the  same  faith,  they  are  united  in  faith,  even  though  many 
of  them  be  heretics  or  infidels.  If  they  receive  the  same  sacraments 
and  submit  to  the  same  rulers,  they  are  in  Christian  communion,  even 
though  tlicy  bite  and  devour  one  another.  They,  then,  boldly  assert 
that  the  Church  is  confined  to  themselves;  that  Greeks,  Anglicans, 
Lutherans,  and  Reformed,  are  out  of  the  Church.  To  make  it  apj^ear 
that  the  Church,  in  their  view  of  its  nature,  is  one  in  faith  and  in 
communion,  they  deny  that  any  body  of  men,  or  any  individual, 
belongs  to  the  Church,  who  does  not  profess  their  faith  and  submit  to 
their  discipline.  Thus  even  the  false,  deteriorated  idea  of  unity,  which 
they  claim,  can  be  predicated  of  the  Church  only  by  denying  the 
Christian  name  to  more  than  one-half  of  Christendom. 

The  answer  given  to  this  argument  by  Anglicans  of  the  Oxford 
school,  is  still  less  satisfactory.  They  admit  that  the  Church  is  one  in 
faith  and  communion,  that  either  heresy  or  schism  is  destructive  of 
all  saving  connection  with  the  body  of  Christ.  To  all  api^earance, 
however,  the  Church  of  England  does  not  hold  the  faith  of  the  Cliurch 
of  Rome,  nor  is  she  in  ecclesiastical  communion  with  her  Latin  sister. 
She  is  also  almost  as  widely  separated  from  the  Greek  and  Oriental 
Churches.  How  low  must  the  idea  of  unity  be  brought  down,  to  make 
it  embrace  all  these  conflicting  bodies !  The  Oxford  writers,  therefore, 
in  order  to  save  their  Church  standing,  are  obliged,  first,  to  teach  with 
Rome  that  unity  of  the  Church  is  merely  in  appearance  or  profession ; 
secondly,  that  England  and  Rome  do  not  differ  as  to  matters  of  faith  ; 
and,  thirdly,  that  notwithstanding  their  mutual  denunciations,  and,  on 
the  part  of  Rome,  of  the  most  formal  act  of  excommunication,  they  are 
still  in  communion.  The  unity  of  communion  therefore,  is,  according 
to  their  doctrine,  compatible  with  non-communion  and  mutual  excom- 
munication. It  is,  however,  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  assert  that  the 
Churches  of  Rome  and  England,  in  a  state  of  absolute  schism  in  refer- 
ence to  each  other,  are  yet  one  in  faith  and  communion.  The  essential 
attribute  of  unity,  therefore,  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  external 
Church,  either  as  to  doctrine  or  as  to  fellowship. 


IDEA  OF  TKE  CHUECH.  25 

Tlie  second  form  of  unity  h  catholicity.  The  Church  is  one,  because 
it  embraces  all  the  people  of  God.  This  was  the  prominent  idea  of 
unity  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  The  Church  is  one, 
because  there  is  none  other.  Those  out  of  the  Church  are,  therefore, 
out  of  Christ,  they  are  not  members  of  his  body,  nor  partakers  of  his 
Spirit.  This  is  the  universal  faith  of  Christendom.  All  denomina- 
tions, in  all  ages,  have,  agreeably  to  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  very  nature  of  the  gospel,  maintained  that  there  is  no 
salvation  out  of  the  Church ;  in  other  words,  that  the  Church  is 
catholic,  embracing  all  the  peoj^le  of  God  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Of 
course  it  depends  on  our  idea  of  the  Church,  whether  this  attribute  of 
comprehensive  unity  belongs  to  it  or  not.  If  the  Church  is  essentially 
a  visible  monarchical  society,  of  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  the  head, 
then  there  can  be  no  true  religion  and  no  salvation  out  of  the  pale  of 
that  society.  To  admit  the  possibility  of  men  being  saved  who  are 
not  subject  to  the  Pope,  is  to  admit  that  they  can  be  saved  out  of  the 
Church ;  and  to  say  they  can  be  saved  out  of  the  Church,  is  to  say 
they  can  be  saved  out  of  Christ,  which  no  Christians  admit.  If  the 
Church  is  a  visible  aristocratical  society,  under  the  government 
of  prelates  having  succession,  then  the  unity  of  the  Church  imj)lies, 
that  those  only  who  are  subject  to  such  prelates  are  within  its  pale. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  neither  true  religion  nor  salvation  except 
among  prelatists.  This  is  a  conclusion  which  flows  unavoidably  from 
ithe  idea  of  the  Church  as  an  external  visible  society.  ^Neither 
Romanists  nor  Anglicans  shrink  from  this  conclusion.  They  avow 
the  premises  and  the  inevitable  sequence.  Mr.  Palmer  says :  "  It  is 
not,  indeed,  to  be  supposed  or  believed  for  a  moment,  that  divine 
grace  would  permit  the  really  holy  and  justified  members  of  Christ  to 
fall  from  the  way  of  life.  He  would  only  permit  the  unsanctified,  the 
enemies  of  Christ,  to  sever  themselves  from  that  fountain  where  his 
Spirit  is  given  freely."  *  This  he  says  in  commenting  on  a  dictum  of 
Augustin,  "  Let  us  hold  it  as  a  thing  unshaken  and  firm  that  no  good 
men  can  divide  themselves  from  the  Church."  f  He  further  quotes 
Irenseus,  as  saying  that  God  has  placed  every  operation  of  his  Spirit 
in  the  Church,  so  that  none  have  the  Spirit  but  those  who  are  in  the 
Church,  "  for  where  the  Church  is,  there  is  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and 
where  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  also  the  Church  and  every  grace 
exist."  J     Cyprian  is  urged  as  another  authority,  who  says :  "  Whoso- 

*  Palmer  on  the  Church.     Vol.  i.  p.  69. 

f  Tnconcussum  firmumque  teneamus,  nullos  bonos  ah  ea  {ecclesia)  se  poses  dividere. — 
Adv.  Parmenian.     Lib.  iii.  ch.  5.  , 
X  Adv.  Hceres,  iii.  24,  p.  223, 


26  CHUECH  POLITY. 

ever,  divorced  from  the  Church,  is  united  to  an  adulteress,  is  separated 
from  the  Church's  promises ;  nor  shall  that  man  attain  the  rewards  of 
Christ,  who  relinquishes  his  Church,  He  is  a  stranger,  he  is  profane, 
he  is  an  enemy."  *  All  this  is  undoubtedly  true.  It  is  true,  as 
Augustin  says,  that  the  good  cannot  divide  themselves  from  the 
Church ;  it  is  true,  as  Irenjeus  says,  where  the  Church  is,  there  the 
Spii'it  of  God  is  ;  and  wdiere  the  Spirit  is,  there  the  Church  is.  This  is 
the  favourite  motto  of  Protestants.  It  is  also  true,  as  Cyprian  says, 
that  he  who  is  separated  from  the  Church,  is  separated  from  Christ. 
This  brings  the  nature  of  the  Church  down  to  a  palpable  matter  of 
fact.  Are  there  any  fi'uits  of  the  Spirit,  any  repentance,  faith,  and 
holy  living,  among  those  who  do  not  obey  the  Pope  ?  If  so,  then  the 
Church  is  not  a  monarchy,  of  which  the  Pope  is  the  head.  Is  there 
any  true  religion,  are  there  any  of  the  people  of  God  who  are  not  sub- 
ject to  prelates?  If  so,  then  the  Church  is  not  a  society  subject  to 
bishops  having  succession.  These  are  questions  which  can  be  easily 
answered.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible,  in  every  particular  case,  to  dis- 
criminate between  true  and  false  professors  of  religion ;  but  still,  as  a 
class,  we  can  distinguish  good  men  from  bad  men,  the  children  of 
God  from  the  children  of  this  world.  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of 
thorns,  nor  figs  of  thistles.  By  their  fruit  we  can  know  them.  A 
wolf  may  indeed  at  times  appear  in  sheep's  clothing,  nevertheless,  men 
can  distinguish  sheep  from  wolves.  We  can  therefore  determine,  with 
full  assurance,  whether  it  is  true,  as  the  Eomish  theory  of  the  Church 
requires,  that  there  is  no  religion  among  Protestants,  whether  all  the 
seemingly  pious  men  of  the  English  Church,  for  example,  are  mere 
hypocrites.  This  is  a  question  about  which  no  rational  man  has  any 
doubt,  and,  therefore,  we  see  not  how  any  such  man  can  fail  to  see  that 
the  Romish  theory  of  the  Church  is  false.  It  is  contradicted  by  noto- 
rious facts.  With  like  assurance  we  decide  against  the  Anglican 
theory,  because  if  that  theory  is  true,  then  there  is  no  religion,  and 
never  has  been  any,  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  It  is, 
however,  equivalent  to  a  confession  that  we  ourselves  are  destitute  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  refuse  to  recognize  as  his  people  the  thousands 
of  Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  and  Reformed,  who  have  lived  for  his 
service,  and  died  to  his  glory.  Here  the  ritual  theory  of  the  Church 
breaks  down  entirely.  If  the  Church  is  an  external  society,  that 
society  must  include  all  good  men,  all  the  children  of  God  in  the 
world.  No  such  society  does  embrace  all  such  men,  and,  therefore,  the 
Church  is  not  a  visible  society.  It  is  a  communion  of  saints.  The 
very  fact  that  a  man  is  a  saint,  a  child  of  God  that  is  born  of  the 

*  De  Unitale,  p.  254. 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  27 

Spirit,  makes  him  a  member  of  the  Church.  To  say,  therefore,  with 
Augustin,  that  no  good  man  can  leave  the  Church,  is  only  to  say  that 
the  good  will  love  and  cleave  to  each  other ;  to  say,  with  Irenseus,  that 
where  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  is  the  Church,  is  to  say  the  presence 
of  the  Spirit  makes  the  Church ;  and  to  say  with  Cyprian,  that  he  who 
is  separated  from  the  Church,  is  separated  from  Christ,  is  only  saying, 
that  if  a  man  love  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  he  cannot 
love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen.  If  the  Church  is  the  communion  of 
saints,  it  includes  all  saints ;  it  has  catholic  unity  because  it  embraces 
all  the  children  of  God.  And  to  say  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the 
Church,  in  this  sense  of  the  word,  is  only  saying  there  is  no  salvation 
for  the  wicked,  for  the  unrenewed  and  unsanctified.  But  to  ,say  there 
is  no  piety  and  no  salvation  out  of  the  papal  or  prelatic  Church,  is 
very  much  like  doing  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  God ;  it  is  to  say  of 
multitudes  of  true  Christians,  what  the  Pharisees  said  of  our  Lord ; 
"  They  cast  out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  the  chief  of  devils."  That  is,  it 
is  denying  the  well-authenticated  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  attributing 
to  some  other  and  some  evil  source,  what  is  really  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "Wherever  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  the  Church  is ; 
and  as  the  Spirit  is  not  only  within,  but  without  all  external  Church 
organizations,  so  the  Church  itself  cannot  be  limited  to  any  visible 
society. 

The  historical  unity  of  the  Church  is  its  perpetuity ;  its  remaining 
one  and  the  same  in  all  ages.  In  this  sense,  also,  the  true  Church  is 
one.  It  is  now  what  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  It  has  con- 
tinued the  same  without  interruption,  from  the  beginning,  and  is  to 
continue  until  the  final  consummation  ;  for  the  gates  of  hell  can  never 
prevail  against  it.  About  this  there  is  no  dispute;  all  Christians 
admit  the  Church  to  be  in  this  sense  perpetual.  In  asserting  the  his- 
torical unity,  or  uninterrupted  continuance  of  the  Church,  all  must 
maintain  the  unbroken  continuance  of  every  thing  which,  according  to 
their  several  theories,  is  essential  to  its  existence.  K  the  Church  is  a 
visible  society,  professing  the  true  faith,  and  subject  to  lawful  prelates, 
and  especially  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  then  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church 
supposes  the  continued  existence  of  such  a  society,  thus  organized, 
always  professing  the  true  faith,  and  always  subject  to  its  lawful  rulers. 
There  must,  therefore,  always  be  an  external  visible  society ;  that 
society  must  profess  the  truth ;  there  must  always  be  prelates  legiti- 
mately consecrated,  and  a  lawful  pope.  If,  according  to  the  Anglican 
theory,  the  Church  is  precisely  what  Romanists  declare  it  to  be, 
except  subjection  to  the  pope,  then  its  perpetuity  involves  all  the 
particulars  above  mentioned,  except  the  continued  recognition  of  the 
headship  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Church  is 


28  -  CHUECH  POLITY. 

a  company  of  believers,  if  it  is  the  communion  of  saints,  all  that  is 
essential  to  its  perpetuity  is  that  there  should  always  be  believers.  It 
is  not  necessary  that  they  should  be  externally  organized,  much  less  is 
it  necessary  that  they  should  be  organized  in  any  prescribed  form.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  any  line  of  officers  should  be  uninterruptedly  con- 
tinued ;  much  less  is  it  necessary  that  those  officers  should  be  prelates' or 
popes.  All  that  God  has  promised,  and  all  that  we  have  a  right  to 
expect,  is,  that  the  true  worshippers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  never 
entirely  fail.  They  may  be  few  and  scattered;  they  may  be  even 
unknown  to  each  other,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  world ;  they 
may  be  as  the  seven  thousand  in  the  days  of  the  prophet  Elijah,  who 
had  not  bowed  the  knee  unto  Baal ;  still,  so  long  as  they  exist,  the 
Church,  considered  as  the  communion  of  saints,  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ  on  earth,  continues  to  exist. 

The  argument  from  this  source,  in  favour  of  the  Protestant  theory 
of  the  Church,  is,  that  in  no  other  sense  is  the  Church  perpetual.  No 
existing  external  society  has  continued  uninterruptedly  to  profess  the 
true  faith.  "Rome  was  at  one  time  Arian,  at  another  Pelagian,  at 
another,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England,  idola- 
trous. All  Latin  churches  were  subject  to  the  instability  of  the  Church 
of  Eome.  No  existing  eastern  Church  has  continued  the  same  in  its 
doctrines,  from  the  times  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time.  That 
there  has  been  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  popes  and  prelates,  validly 
consecrated,  is  admitted  to  be  a  matter  of  faith,  and  not  of  sight. 
From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  does  not  admit  of  historical  proof.  The 
chances,  humanly  speaking,  are  as  a  million  to  one  against  it.  If  it  is 
assumed,  it  must  be  on  the  ground  of  the  supposed  necessity  of  such 
succession  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  which  is  a  matter  of  pro- 
mise. But  the  Church  can  exist  without  a  pope,  Avithout  prelates,  yea, 
without  presbyters,  if  in  its  essential  nature  it  is  the  communion  of 
saints.  There  is,  therefore,  no  promise  of  an  uninterrupted  succession 
of  validly  ordained  church-officers,  and  consequently  no  foundation  for 
faith  in  any  such  succession.  In  the  absence  of  any  such  promise,  the 
historical  argument  against  "  apostolic  succession,"  becomes  overwhelm- 
ing and  unanswerable. 

We  must  allow  the  attributes  of  the  Church  to  determine  our  con- 
ception of  its  nature.  If  no  external  society  is  perpetual ;  if  every 
existing  visible  Church  has  more  than  once  apostatized  from  the  faith, 
then  the  Church  must  be  something  Avhich  can  continue  in  the  midst 
of  the  general  defection  of  all  external  societies ;  then  external  organi- 
zation is  not  essential  to  the  Church,  much  less  can  any  particular  mode 
of  organization  be  essential  to  its  existence.  The  only  Church  which 
is  holy,  which  is  one,  which  is  catholic,  apostolic,  and  perpetual,  is  the 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  29 

communion  of  saints,  the  company  of  faithful  men,  the  mystical  body 
of  Christ,  whose  only  essential  bond  of  union  is  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  That  Spirit,  however,  always  produces  faith  and  love,  so 
that  all  in  whom  he  dwells  are  united  in  faith  and  Christian  fellow- 
ship. And  as,  in  virtue  of  the  divine  promise,  the  Spirit  is  to  remain 
constantly  gathering  in  the  people  of  God,  until  Christ  comes  the 
second  time,  so  the  Church  can  never  fail.  The  attributes,  then,  of 
holiness,  unity,  and  perpetuity,  do  not  belong  to  any  external  society, 
and  therefore  no  such  society  can  be  the  Church.  They  are  all  found, 
in  their  strictest  sense  and  highest  measure,  in  the  communion  of  saints, 
and,  therefore,  the  saints  constitute  the  one,  holy,  apostolic.  Catholic 
Church. 

Argument  from  the  promises  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church. — The 
Scriptures  abound  with  promises  addressed  to  the  Church,  and  they 
ascribe  certain  prerogatives  to  it.  From  the  character  of  these  pro- 
mises and  prerogatives,  we  may  infer  the  nature  of  the  Church. 

1.  The  most  comprehensive  of  the  promises  in  question,  is  that  of  the 
continued  presence  of  Christ,  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit.  This 
promise  is  often  given  in  express  terms,  and  is  involved  in .  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  temple  of  God.  It  is 
not  his  body,  neither  is  it  the  temple  of  God,  without  the  presence  of 
the  Spirit.  The  presence  of  God  is  not  inoperative.  It  is  like  the 
presence  of  light  and  heat,  or  of  knowledge  and  love,  which  of  necessity 
manifest  themselves  by  their  effects.  In  like  manner,  and  by  a  like 
necessity,  the  presence  of  God  is  manifested  by  holiness,  righteousness, 
and  peace.  He  is  not,  where  these  graces  are  not ;  just  as  certainly  as 
light  is  not  present  in  the  midst  of  darkness.  The  promise  of  God  to 
his  Church  is,  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always ;  in  every  age  and  in  every 
part  of  the  world ;  so  that  where  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  is  the 
Church ;  and  where  the  Church  is,  there  is  the  Spirit.  The  presence 
promised  is,  therefore,  a  perpetual  presence.  It  is  also  universal. 
God  does  not  promise  to  be  with  the  officers  of  the  Church  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  members ;  nor  with  some  members  to  the  exclusion  of 
others.  The  soul  is  not  in  the  head  of  the  human  bodj',  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  limbs ;  nor  is  it  in  the  eyes  and  ears,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  hands  or  feet.  So  long  as  it  is  in  the  body  at  all,  it  is  in  the  whole 
body.  In  like  manner  the  promised  presence  of  God  with  his  Church 
relates  to  all  its  members. 

If  this  is  so;  if  God  has  promised  to  be  with  his  Church;  if  his  pre- 
sence is  operative ;  if  it  is  perpetual  and  all-pervading,  then  it  is  plain 
that  this  promise  was  never  made  to  any  external  society,  for  to  no  such 
society  has  it  ever  been  fulfilled.  No  such  society  has  had  the  per- 
sistency in  truth  and  holiness,  which  the  divine  presence  of  necessity 


30  CHURCH  POLITY. 

secures.  If  in  one  age  it  professes  the  truth,  in  another  it  professes 
error.  If  at  one  time  its  members  appear  holy,  at  another  they  are 
most  manifestly  corrupt.  Or,  if  some  manifest  the  presence  of  the 
Spirit,  others  give  evidence  that  they  are  not  under  his  influence.  It 
is,  therefore,  just  as  plain  that  God  is  not  always  present  with  the 
external  Church,  as  that  the  sun  is  not  always  above  our  horizoh. 
The  nominal  Church  would  correspond  with  the  real,  the  visible  with  the 
invisible,  if  the  promise  of  the  divine  presence  belonged  to  the  former. 
With  his  own  people  God  is  always  present ;  they,  therefore,  must  con- 
stitute that  Church  to  whom  the  promise  of  his  presence  belongs. 

2.  The  promise  of  divine  teaching  is  made  to  the  Church.  This  is 
included  in  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
the  source  of  light  and  knowledge,  wherever  he  dwells.  Christ,  when 
about  to  leave  the  world,  promised  his  disciples  that  he  would  send 
them  the  Spirit,  to  guide  them  into  all  truth.  With  regard  to  this 
promise  it  is  to  be  remarked,  1.  That  it  is  made  to  all  the  members  of 
the  Church.  It  is  not  the  peculium  of  its  officers,  for  it  is  expressly 
said.  Ye  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.  And  the  apostle  John  says  to  all 
believers.  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 
things.  2.  It  relates  only  to  necessary  truths.  God  has  not  promised 
to  teach  his  people  all  science,  nor  has  he  promised  to  render  them 
infallible  in  matters  of  religion.  All  he  has  promised,  is  to  teach  them 
whatever  is  necessary  to  their  salvation,  and  to  qualify  them  for  the 
work  to  which  they  are  called.  3.  This  divine  teaching  is  effectual 
and  abiding.  "  The  anointing,"  says  the  apostle,  "  which  ye  have  re- 
ceived of  him,  abideth  with  you."  Those  who  are  taught  of  God, 
therefore,  continue  in  the  knowledge  and  acknowledgment  of  the  truth. 

That  such  divine  teaching  is  not  promised  to  any  external  society,  is 
plain ;  1.  Because  all  the  constituent  members  of  no  such  society  are 
thus  divinely  taught.  The  visible  Church  includes  "  all  sorts  of  men," 
good  and  bad,  ignorant  and  enlightened,  heterodox  and  orthodox, 
believing  and  infidel.  Of  the  members  of  that  society,  therefore,  that 
is  not  true  which  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  true,  with  regard  to  the 
members  of  the  Church.  They  are  not  all  taught  of  God.  2.  Within 
the  pale  of  every  external,  and  especially  of  every  denominational 
Church,  there  is  heresy,  either  secret  or  avowed.  But  the  teaching 
of  God,  as  has  been  shown,  precludes  the  possibility  of  fundamental 
error.  There  may  be  great  diversity  of  views  on  many  points  of  doc- 
trine, but  as  to  every  thing  necessary  to  salvation,  all  the  members  of 
the  body  of  Christ  must  agree.  It  is,  however,  notorious  and  avowed, 
that  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  of  England,  and  of  Rome,  all  forms  of 
doctrine,  from  the  purest  scriptural  faith  down  to  the  lowest  skepticism, 
are  to  be  found ;  therefore  no  such  society  can  be  the  Church  to  which 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  3X 

this  divine  teaching  is  promised.  3.  The  teaching  of  God  being  per- 
petual, securing  constancy  in  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth,  none 
but  those  who  continue  in  the  truth  can  belong  to  the  Church  to 
which  that  teaching  is  promised.  This  fidelity  is  an  attribute  of  the 
invisible  Church  alone,  and  therefore  the  communion  of  saints  is  the 
body  to  which  this  promise  is  made. 

3.  A  third  promise  is  that  of  divine  protection.  By  this  promise 
the  Church  is  secured  from  internal  decay  and  from  external  destruc- 
tion. Its  enemies  are  numerous  and  powerful ;  they  are  ever  on  the 
watch,  and  most  insidious  in  their  attacks.  Without  the  constant 
protection  of  her  divine  Sovereign,  the  Church  would  soon  entirely 
perish.  This  promise  is  made  to  every  individual  member  of  the 
Church.  They  are  all  the  members  of  his  body,  and  his  body,  re- 
deemed and  sanctified,  can  never  perish.  No  man,  he  says,  shall  ever 
pluck  them  out  of  his  hand.  They  may  be  sorely  tempted  ;  they  may 
be  seduced  into  many  errors,  and  even  into  sin ;  but  Satan  shall  not 
triumph  over  them.  They  may  be  persecuted,  and  driven  into  the 
caverns  and  dens  of  the  earth,  but  though  cast  down,  they  are  never 
forsaken. 

That  this  promise  of  protection  is  not  made  to  the  external  Church 
is  plain,  1.  Because  multitudes  included  within  the  pale  of  that 
Church  are  not  the  subjects  of  this  divine  protection.  2.  The  external 
Church  has  not  been  preserved  from  apostasy.  Both  before  and  since 
the  advent  of  Christ,  idolatry  or  false  doctrine  has  been  introduced 
and  tolerated  by  the  official  organs  of  that  Church.  3.  A  society  dis- 
persed is,  for  the  time  being,  destroyed.  Its  organization  being  dis- 
solved, it  ceases  to  exist  as  a  society.  From  such  disorganization  or 
dispersion,  the  visible  Church  has  not  been  protected,  and  therefore  it 
cannot  be  the  body  to  which  this  promise  of  protection  belongs. 

4.  We  find  in  the  Scriptures  frequent  assurances  that  the  Church  is 
to  extend  from  sea  to  sea,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun ; 
that  all  nations  and  people  are  to  flow  unto  it.  These  promises  the 
Jews  referred  to  their  theocracy.  Jerusalem  was  to  be  the  capital  of 
the  world ;  the  King  of  Zion  was  to  be  the  King  of  the  whole  earth, 
and  all  nations  were  to  be  subject  to  the  Jews.  Judaizing  Christians 
interpret  these  same  predictions  as  securing  the  universal  prevalence 
of  the  theocratic  Church,  with  its  pope  or  prelates.  In  opposition  to 
both,  the  Redeemer  said :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."  His 
apostles  also  taught  that  the  kingdom  of  God  consists  in  righteousness, 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  extension  of  the  Church, 
therefore,  consists  in  the  prevalence  of  love  to  God  and  man,  of  the 
worship  and  service  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  matters  not  how  the 
saints  may  be  associated;  it  is  not  their  association,  but  their  faith 


32  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  love  that  makes  tliem  the  Church,  and  as  they  multiply  and 
spread,  so  does  the  Church  extend.  All  the  fond  anticipations  of  the 
Jews,  founded  on  a  false  interpretation  of  the  divine  promises,  were 
dissipated  by  the  advent  of  a  Messiah  whose  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world.  History  is  not  less  effectually  refuting  the  ritual  theory  of  the 
Church,  by  showing  that  piety,  the  worship  and  obedience  of  Christ, 
the  true  kingdom  of  God,  is  extending  far  beyond  the  limits  which 
that  theory  would  assign  to  the  dominion  of  the  Redeemer. 

5.  The  great  promise  made  to  the  Church  is  holiness  and  salvation. 
Christ,  it  is  said,  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he 
might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word  ; 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot, 
or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish.  This  and  similar  passages,  plainly  teach  that  holiness  and 
salvation  are  promised  to  every  member  of  the  Church.  This  is  obvi- 
ous ;  1.  Because  these  are  blessings  of  which  individuals  alone  are  sus- 
ceptible. It  is  not  a  community  or  society,  as  such,  that  is  redeemed, 
regenerated,  sanctified,  and  saved.  Persons,  and  not  communities,  are 
the  subjects  of  these  blessings.  2.  This  follows  from  the  relation  of 
the  Church  to  Christ  as  his  body.  The  members  of  the  Church  are 
members  of  Christ.  They  are  in  him,  partakers  of  his  life,  and  the 
subjects  of  his  grace.  3.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  conceded  point.  It  is  the 
common  doctrine  of  all  Christians,  that  out  of  the  Church  there  is  no 
salvation,  and  within  the  Church  there  is  no  perdition.  It  is  the  doc- 
trine of  all  ritualists,  that  those  who  die  in  communion  with  the  Church 
are  saved.  To  this  conclusion  they  are  unavoidably  led  by  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  Church,  as  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
temple  of  God.  Protestants  admit  the  justice  of  the  conclusion. 
They  acknowledge  that  the  Bible  as  plainly  teaches  that  every  member 
of  the  Church  shall  be  saved,  as  that  every  penitent  believer  shall  be 
admitted  into  heaven.  If  this  is  so,  as  both  parties  virtually  concede, 
it  determines  the  nature  of  the  Church.  If  all  the  members  of  the 
Church  are  saved,  the  Church  must  consist  exclusively  of  saints,  and 
not  "  of  all  sorts  of  men." 

Membership  in  the  Church  being  thus  inseparably  connected  with 
salvation,  to  represent  the  Church  as  a  visible  society,  is — 1.  To  make 
the  salvation  of  men  to  depend  upon  their  external  relation,  entirely 
irrespective  of  their  moral  character.  2.  It  is  to  promise  salvation  to 
multitudes  against  whom  God  denounces  wrath.  3.  It  is  to  denounce 
wrath  on  many  to  whom  God  promises  salvation.  4.  It  therefore 
utterly  destroys  the  nature  of  true  religion. 

The  argument  for  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  Church,  derived 
from  the  divine  promises,  is  this.     Those  promises,  according  to  the 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  33 

Scriptures,  are  made  to  the  humble,  the  penitent  and  believing ;  the 
Church,  therefore,  must  consist  exclusively  of  the  regenerated.  Those 
to  whom  the  promises  of  divine  presence,  guidance,  protection,  and 
salvation,  are  made,  cannot  be  a  promiscuous  multitude  of  all  sorts  of 
men.  That  theory  of  the  Church,  therefore,  which  makes  it  an  exter- 
nal society,  is  necessarily  destructive  of  religion  and  morality.  Of 
religion,  because  it  teaches  that  our  relation  to  God  depends  on  out- 
ward circumstances,  and  not  on  the  state  of  the  heart  and  character  of 
the  life.  If,  by  an  external  rite  or  outward  profession,  we  are  made 
"  members  of  Christ,"  "  the  children  of  God,"  and  "  inheritors  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  "  if  we  are  thus  united  to  that  body  to  which  all 
the  promises  are  made;  and  if  our  connection  with  the  Church  or 
body  of  Christ,  can  be  dissolved  only  by  heresy,  schism,  or  excommu- 
nication, then  of  necessity  religion  is  mere  formalism.  Church  mem- 
bership is  the  only  condition  of  salvation,  and  Church  ceremonies  the 
only  exercises  of  piety. 

This  natural  tendency  of  the  theory  in  question  is,  indeed,  in  many 
minds,  counteracted  by  opposing  influences.  Men  who  have  access  to 
the  Bible,  cannot  altogether  resist  the  power  of  its  truths.  They  are 
thus  often  saved,  in  a  measure,  from  the  perverting  influence  of  their 
false  views  of  the  Church.  The  whole  tendency,  however,  of  such 
error,  is  to  evil.  It  perverts  one's  views  of  the  nature  of  religion,  and 
of  the  conditions  of  salvation.  It  leads  men  to  substitute  for  real 
piety  the  indulgence  of  religious  sentiment.  They  expend  on  the 
Church  as  an  sesthetic  idea,  or  as  represented  in  a  cathedral,  the  awe, 
the  reverence,  the  varied  emotions,  which  similate  the  fear  of  God  and 
love  of  his  excellence.  This  kind  of  religion  often  satisfies  those  whose 
consciences  are  too  much  enlightened,  and  whose  tastes  are  too  much 
refined,  to  allow  them  to  make  full  use  of  the  theory  that  the  visible 
Church  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  all  its  members  the  children  of  God. 

This  doctrine  is  no  less  destructive  of  morality  than  of  religion. 
How  can  it  be  otherwise,  if  all  the  promises  of  God  are  made  to  men, 
not  as  penitent  and  holy,  but  as  members  of  an  external  society;  and 
if  membership  in  that  society  requires,  as  Bellarmin  and  Mr.  Palmer, 
Oxford  and  Rome,  teach,  no  internal  virtue  whatever?  This  injurious 
tendency  of  Ritualism  is  not  a  matter  of  logical  inference  merely.  It 
is  abundantly  demonstrated  by  history.  The  ancient  Jews  believed 
that  God  had  made  a  covenant  which  secured  the  salvation  of  all  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  upon  condition  of  their  adherence  to 
the  external  theocracy.  They  might  be  punished  for  their  sins,  but, 
according  to  their  doctrine,  no  circumcised  Israelite  ever  entered  hell. 
The  efiect  of  this  doctrine  was  manifest  in  their  whole  spirit  and  cha- 
racter. External  connection  with  the  Church,  and  practice  of  its  ritea 
3 


34  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

and  ceremonies,  constituted  their  religion.  They  would  not  eat  with 
unwashen  hands,  nor  pray  unless  towards  Jerusalem ;  but  they  would 
devour  widows'  houses,  and,  for  a  pretence,  make  long  prayers.  They 
were  whited  sepulchres,  fair  in  the  sight  of  men,  but  within  full  of 
dead  men's  bones  and  of  all  uncleanness.  The  same  effect  has  been 
produced  by  the  doctrine  which  makes  salvation  depend  upon  connec- 
tion with  a  visible  society,  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  Eccle- 
siastical services  have  taken  the  place  of  spiritual  worship.  Corrup- 
tion of  morals  has  gone  hand  in  hand  with  the  decline  of  religion. 
The  wicked  are  allowed  to  retain  their  standing  in  the  Church,  and  are 
led  to  consider  themselves  as  perfectly  safe  so  long  as  embraced  within 
its  communion ;  and  no  matter  what  their  crimes,  they  are  committed 
to  the  dust  "  in  the  sure  hope  of  a  blessed  resurrection." 

There  is  one  effect  of  this  false  theory  of  the  Church,  which  ought  to 
be  specially  noticed.  It  is  the  parent  of  bigotry,  religious  pride  com- 
bined with  malignity.  Those  who  cry.  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the 
temple  of  the  Lord  are  we,  are  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God. 
That  this  spirit  is  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  ritual  theory  is  plain. 
That  theory  leads  a  particular  class  of  men  to  regard  themselves,  on 
the  ground  of  their  external  relations,  as  the  special  favourites  of 
heaven.  It  is  of  course  admitted  that  a  sense  of  God's  favour,  the 
assurance  of  his  love,  is  the  fountain  of  all  holy  affections  and  right 
actions.  Hence  the  Bible  is  filled  with  the  declarations  of  his  love  for 
his  people ;  and  hence  the  Holy  Spirit  is  sent  to  shed  abroad  his  love 
in  their  hearts.  The  assurance  of  the  divine  favour,  however,  pro- 
duces holiness,  only  when  Ave  have  right  apprehensions  of  God,  and  of 
the  way  in  which  his  love  comes  to  be  exercised  towards  us.  "When 
we  see  that  he  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  look  upon  sin ;  that  it  is  only 
for  Christ's  sake  he  is  propitious  to  the  guilty;  that  the  love  and 
indulgence  of  sin  are  proof  that  we  are  not  the  objects  of  his  favour, 
the  more  we  see  of  our  unworthiness,  the  more  grateful  are  we  for  his 
undeserved,  love,  and  the  more  desirous  to  be  conformed  to  his  image. 
But  when  men  believe  they  are  the  favourites  of  God,  because  members 
of  a  particular  society,  that  no  matter  what  their  personal  character, 
they  are  objects  of  God's  special  love,  then  the  natural  and  inevitable 
effect  is  pride,  contempt,  intolerance,  malignity,  and,  when  they  dare, 
persecution.  The  empirical  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  remark  is  found 
in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  of  the  Brahmins,  of  the  Mohammedans, 
and  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  practical  effect 
of  the  doctrine  in  question,  wherever  it  has  prevailed.  The  Jews  re- 
garded themselves  as  the  peculiar  favourites  of  God  in  virtue  of  their 
descent  from  Abraham,  and  irrespective  of  their  personal  character. 
This  belief  rendered  them  proud,  contemptuous,  intolerant,  and  malig- 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH.  35 

nant  towards  all  beyond  their  exclusive  circle.  In  the  Christian 
Church  we  always  find  the  same  spirit  connected  with  this  doctrine, 
expressed  under  one  set  of  circumstances  by  anathemas,  enforced  by 
the  rack  and  stake ;  under  another,  by  denying  the  mercy  of  God  to 
the  penitent  and  believing,  if  not  subject  to  "  pastors  having  succes- 
sion ; "  by  setting  up  exclusive  claims  to  be  the  Church  of  God ;  by 
contemptuous  language  and  deportment  towards  their  fellow  Chris- 
tians ;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Palmer,  with  the  open  avowal  of  the 
right  and  duty  of  persecution. 

Such  are  the  legitimate  effects  of  this  theory ;  effects  which  it  has 
never  failed  to  produce.  It  is  essentially  Antinomian  in  its  tendency, 
destructive  of  true  religion,  and  injurious  to  holy  living,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  in  accordance  with  the  word  and  will  of  God. 

The  only  answer  given  to  this  fatal  objection  is  an  evasion.  Ritual- 
ists abandon  pro  hoc  vice  their  theory.  They  teach,  that  to  the 
visible  Church,  Christ  has  promised  his  constant  presence,  his  guid- 
ance, his  protection,  and  his  saving  grace ;  and  that  in  order  to  mem- 
bership in  this  Church,  no  internal  virtue  is  required,  no  regeneration, 
piety,  sanctity,  visible  or  invisible.  But  when  it  is  objected,  that  if  the 
promises  are  made  to  the  visible  Church,  they  are  made  to  the  wicked, 
for  the  wicked  are  within  the  pale  of  that  Church,  they  answer,  "  The 
wicked  are  not  really  in  the  Church ; "  the  Church  really  consists  of 
"  the  elect,  the  predestinated,  the  sanctified."  *  As  soon,  however,  as 
this  difficulty  is  out  of  sight,  they  return  to  their  theory,  and  make  the 
Church  to  consist  "  of  all  sorts  of  men."  This  temporary  admission  of 
the  truth,  does  not  coiinteract  the  tendency  of  the  constant  inculcation 
of  the  doctrine  that  membership  in  that  body  to  which  the  promises 
are  made,  is  secured  by  external  profession.  "WTierever  that  doctrine 
is  taught,  there  the  very  essence  of  Antinomianism  is  inculcated,  and 
there  the  fruits  of  Antinomianism  never  fail  to  appear. 

The  same  argument,  afforded  by  a  consideration  of  the  promises 
made  to  the  Church  to  determine  its  nature,  flows  from  a  consideration 
of  its  prerogatives.  Those  prerogatives  are  the  authority  to  teach,  and 
the  right  to  exercise  discipline.  These  are  included  in  the  power  of 
the  keys.  This  is  not  the  place  for  any  formal  exhibition  of  the  na- 
ture and  limitations  of  this  power.  To  construct  the  argument  to  be 
now  presented,  it  is  only  necessary  to  assume  what  all  CTiristians  con- 
cede. Christ  has  given  his  Church  the  authority  to  teach,  and  to  bind 
and  loose.  He  has  promised  to  ratify  her  decisions,  and  to  enforce  her 
judgments.  In  this  general  statement  all  denominations  of  Christians 
agree.     Our  present  question  is.  To  whom  does  this  power  belong? 

*  Palmer  on  the  Church,  I.  pp.  28,  58. 


36  CHURCH  POLITY. 

To  the  Church,  of  course.  But  is  it  to  the  visible  Church,  as  such, 
irrespective  of  the  spiritual  state  of  its  members,  or  is  it  to  the  Church 
considered  as  the  communion  of  saints  ?  The  answer  to  this  question 
makes  all  the  difference  between  Popery  and  Protestantism,  between 
the  Inquisition  and  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people 
free. 

The  prerogative  in  question  does  not  belong  to  the  visible  Church,  or 
to  its  superior  officers,  but  to  the  company  of  believers  and  their  ap- 
propriate organs;  1.  Because  it  presupposes  the  presence  and  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  only  because  the  Church  is  the  organ  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  and  therefore  only  so  far  as  it  is  his  organ,  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  is  the  teaching  of  Christ,  or  that  her  decisions 
will  be  ratified  in  heaven.  It  has,  however,  been  abundantly  proved 
from  the  word  of  God,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  only  in  true  be- 
lievers ;  they  only  are  his  organs,  and  therefore  it  is  only  the  teaching 
and  discipline  of  his  own  people,  as  guided  by  his  Spirit,  that  Christ 
has  promised  to  ratify.  To  them  alone  belongs  the  prerogative  in 
question,  and  to  any  external  body,  only  on  the  assumption  of  their 
being,  and  only  as  far  as  they  are  what  they  profess  to  be,  the  true 
children  of  God.  No  external  visible  body,  as  such,  is  so  far  the  organ 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  its  teachings  are  the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  its 
decisions  his  judgments.  No  such  body  is,  therefore,  the  Church  to. 
which  the  power  of  doctrine,  and  the  key  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
have  been  committed. 

2.  As  it  is  undeniable  that  the  visible  Church  is  always  a  mixed 
body,  and  often  controlled  in  its  action  by  wicked  or  worldly  men,  if 
Christ  had  promised  to  ratify  the  teaching  and  discipline  of  that  body, 
he  would  be  bound  to  sanction  what  was  contrary  to  his  own  word  and 
Spirit.  It  is  certain  that  unrenewed  men  are  governed  by  the  spirit 
of  the  world,  or  by  that  spirit  which  works  in  the  children  of  disobe- 
dience, and  it  is  no  less  certain  that  the  visible  Church  has  often  been 
composed,  in  great  measure,  of  unrenewed  men ;  if,  therefore,  to  them 
has  been  committed  this  prerogative,  then  the  people  of  God  are,  by 
Christ's  own  command,  bound  to  obey  the  world  and  those  governed 
by  its  spirit.  If  wicked  men,  whether  in  the  Church  or  out  of  it,  cast 
us  out  of  their  communion,  because  of  the  opposition  between  us  and 
them,  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  judgment  of  the  world.  It  is  neither 
the  judgment  of  Christ,  nor  of  his  Church.  But  if  true  believers  refuse 
us  their  fellowship,  because  of  our  opposition  to  them  as  believers,  it  is 
a  very  different  matter.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  rejected  by  the  wicked 
because  they  are  wicked,  and  quite  another  to  be  cast  off  by  the  good 
because  they  are  good.  It  is  only  the  judgment  of  his  own  people,  and 
even  of  his  own  people,  only  as  they  submit  to  the  guidance  of  his  own 


IDEA  OF  THE  CHUKCH.  37 

Spirit,  (i.  e.,  of  his  people  as  his  people,)  that  Christ  has  promised  to 
ratify  in  heaven.  The  condemnation  of  Christ  himself  by  the  Jewish 
Church,  of  Athanasius  by  the  Church  of  the  fifth  century,  of  Protest- 
ants by  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  but  the  judgment  of  the  Avorld,  and 
of  him  who  is  the  god  of  this  world. 

3.  If  the  power  of  the  keys  is,  as  ritualists  teach,  committed  to  the 
chief  officers  of  the  Church  as  a  visible  society,  if  it  is  their  official  pre- 
rogative, then  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment. Such  a  right  can  have  no  place  in  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  If  the  chief  officers  of  the  Church,  without  regard  to  their  cha- 
racter, are  the  organs  of  that  Spirit,  then  all  private  Christians  are 
bound  to  submit  without  hesitation  to  all  their  decisions.  This,  as  is 
well  known,  is  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  all  those  Churches  which 
hold  that  the  promises  and  prerogatives  pertaining  to  the  Church,  be- 
long to  the  Church  as  a  visible  society.  All  private  judgment,  all 
private  responsibility,  are  done  away.  But  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  to  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of 
God,  to  reject  an  apostle,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  should  he  deny  the 
faith,  and  of  that  denial  such  Christian  is  of  necessity  the  judge.  Faith, 
moreover,  is  an  act  for  which  every  man  is  personally  resj^onsible ;  his 
salvation  depends  upon  his  believing  the  truth.  He  must,  therefore, 
have  the  right  to  believe  God,  let  the  chief  officers  of  the  Church  teach 
what  they  may.  The  right  of  private  judgment  is,  therefore,  a  di^ane 
right.  It  is  incompatible  with  the  ritual  theory  of  the  Church,  but 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  Protestant  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  the 
communion  of  saints.     The  latter  is  consequently  the  true  doctrine. 

4.  The  fact  that  the  teaching  of  the  visible  Church  has  so  often  been 
contradictory  and  heretical,  that  council  is  against  council,  one  age 
against  another  age,  one  part  of  the  Church  against  another  part,  is  a 
clear  proof  that  the  prerogative  of  authoritative  teaching  was  never 
given  by  Christ  to  any  such  erring  body.  And  the  fact  that  the  exter- 
nal Church  has  so  often  excommunicated  and  persecuted  the  true  peo- 
ple of  God,  is  proof  positive  that  hers  are  not  the  decisions  which  are 
always  ratified  in  heaven. 

There  are  many  difficult  questions  respecting  the  "power  of  the 
keys,"  which  are  not  here  alluded  to.  All  that  is  now  necessary,  is  to 
show  that  this  is  a  prerogative  which  cannot  belong  to  the  visible 
Church  as  such.  It  can  belong  to  her  only  so  far  as  she  is  the  organ  of 
the  Church  invisible,  to  which  all  the  attributes,  the  promises  and 
prerogatives  of  the  true  Church  are  to  be  referred.  And  no  more 
wicked  or  more  disastrous  mistake  has  ever  been  made,  than  to  trans- 
fer to  the  visible  society  of  professors  of  the  true  religion,  subject  to 
bishops  having  succession,  the  promises  and  prerogatives  of  the  body 


38  CHUECH  POLITY. 

of  Christ.  It  is  to  attribute  to  tlie  world  the  attributes  of  the  Church ; 
to  the  kingdom  of  darkness  the  prerogatives  of  the  kingdom  of  light. 
It  is  to  ascribe  to  wickedness  the  character  and  blessedness  of  goodness. 
Every  such  historical  Church  has  been  the  world  baptized ;  all  the 
men  of  a  generation,  or  of  a  nation,  are  included  in  the  pale  of  such 
a  communion.  If  they  are  the  Church,  who  are  the  world  ?  If  they 
are  the  kingdom  of  light,  who  constitute  the  kingdom  of  darkness  ? 
To  teach  that  the  promises  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church  belong  to 
these  visible  societies,  is  to  teach  that  they  belong  to  the  world,  organ- 
ized under  a  particular  form  and  called  by  a  new  name. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THEORIES   OF   THE   CHURCH.  [*] 

This  is  one  of  the  ablest  productions  of  the  Oxford  school.  The 
theory  of  the  Church  which  that  school  has  embraced,  is  here  presented 
historically,  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  sustained  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  design  of  the  Church,  as  a  divine  institute,  and  the 
common  conclusion  is  arrived  at  and  urged,  that  the  one  Church,  as 
described  by  the  author,  is  the  only  revealed  way  of  salvation.  Arch- 
deacon Manning's  work  has  excited  no  little  attention  in  England; 
and  its  republication  in  this  country,  has  been  warmly  welcomed  by 
the  Oxford  party  in  America. 

We  do  not  propose  to  make  the  book  before  us,  the  subject  of  parti- 
cular examination ;  but  simply  to  exhibit  the  theory  of  the  Church 
which  it  advocates,  in  connection  and  contrast  with  that  which  neces- 
sarily arises  out  of  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine.  The  Church 
as  an  outward  organization  is  the  result  and  expression  of  an  inward 
spiritual  life ;  and  consequently  must  take  its  form  from  the  nature  of 
the  life  whence  it  springs.  This  is  only  saying,  in  other  words,  that 
our  theory  of  the  Church,  depends  on  our  theory  of  doctrine.  If  we 
hold  a  particular  system  of  doctrine,  we  must  hold  a  corresponding 
theory  of  the  Church.  The  two  are  so  intimately  connected  that  they 
cannot  be  separated ;  and  it  is  doubtful  whether,  as  a  matter  of  expe- 
rience, the  system  of  doctrine  most  frequently  leads  to  the  adoption  of 
a  particular  view  of  the  Church,  or  whether  the  view  men  take  of  the 

[*  Princeton  Review,  article  same  title,  in  review  of  ^'The  Unity  of  the  Church, 
by  Henry  Edward  Manning ;"  1846,  p.  137.] 


THEOKIES  OF  THE  CHURCH.  39 

Church  more  generally  determines  their  system  of  doctrines.  In  the 
order  of  nature,  and  perhaps  also  most  frequently  in  experience,  the 
doctrine  precedes  the  theory. 

History  teaches  us  that  Christianity  appears  under  three  character- 
istic forms  ;  which  for  the  sake  of  distinction  may  be  called  the  Evan- 
gelical, the  Ritual,  and  the  Rationalistic.  These  forms  always  co-exist 
in  the  Church,  and  are  constantly  striving  for  the  mastery.  At  one 
period,  the  one,  and  at  another,  another  gains  the  ascendency,  and 
gives  character  to  that  period.  During  the  apostolic  age,  the  evan- 
gelical system  prevailed,  though  in  constant  conflict  with  Ritualism  in 
the  form  of  Judaism.  During  the  next  age  of  the  Church  we  find 
Rationalism  struggling  for  the  ascendency,  under  the  form  of  Gnosti- 
cism and  the  philosophy  of  the  Platonizing  fathers.  Ritualism,  how- 
ever, soon  gained  the  mastery,  which  it  maintained  almost  without  a 
struggle  until  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  At  that  period  evangelical 
truth  gained  the  ascendency  which  it  maintained  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years,  and  was  succeeded  on  the  continent  by  Rationalism,  and  in 
England,  under  Archbishop  Laud,  by  Ritualism.  This  latter  system, 
however,  was  there  pressed  beyond  endurance,  and  the  measures 
adopted  for  promoting  it,  led  to  a  violent  reaction.  The  restoration  of 
Charles  the  II.  commenced  the  reign  of  the  Rationalistic  form  of  doc- 
trine in  England,  manifesting  itself  in  low  Arminian  or  Pelagian 
views,  and  in  general  indifierence.  This  continued  to  characterize  the 
Church  in  Great  Britain,  until  the  appearance  of  Wesley  and  White- 
field,  about  a  century  ago,  since  which  time  there  has  been  a  constant 
advance  in  the  prevalence  and  power  of  evangelical  truth  both  in 
England  and  Scotland.  Within  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years,  however, 
a  new  movement  has  taken  place,  which  has  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  whole  Christian  world. 

After  the  fall  of  Archbishop  Laud,  the  banishment  of  James  II.  and 
the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  non-jurors,  the  principles  which  they 
represented,  though  they  found  here  and  there  an  advocate  in  the 
Church  of  England,  lay  nearly  dormant,  until  the  publication  of  the 
Oxford  Tracts.  Since  that  time  their  progress  has  been  rapid,  and 
connected  with  the  contemporaneous  revival  of  Popery,  constitutes  the 
characteristic  ecclesiastical  features  of  the  present  generation.  The 
Church  universal  is  so  united,  that  no  great  movement  in  one  portion 
of  it,  can  be  destitute  of  interest  for  all  the  rest.  The  Church  in  this 
country,  especially,  is  so  connected  with  the  Church  in  Great  Britain, 
there  are  so  many  channels  of  reciprocal  influence  between  the  two, 
that  nothing  of  importance  can  happen  there,  which  is  not  felt  here. 
The  Church  in  the  one  country  has  generally  risen  and  declined,  with 
the  Church  in  the  other.     The  spiritual  death  which  gradually  over- 


40  CHURCH  POLITY 

spread  Eogland  and  Scotland  from  the  revolution  of  1688  to  the  rise 
of  Wesley,  in  no  small  measure  spread  its  influence  over  America ; 
and  the  great  revival  of  religion  in  England  and  Scotland  before  the 
middle  of  the  last  century,  was  contemporaneous  with  the  revival 
which  extended  in  this  country  from  Maine  to  Georgia.  The  recent 
progress  of  Eitualism  in  England,  is  accompanied  by  the  spread  of  'the 
same  principles  in  America.  We  are  not,  therefore,  uninterested 
spectators  of  the  struggle  now  in  progress  between  the  two  conflicting 
systems  of  doctrines  and  theories  of  the  Church,  the  Evangelical  and 
the  Ritual.  The  spiritual  welfare  of  our  children  and  of  the  country 
is  deeply  concerned  in  the  issue. 

The  difierent  forms  of  religion  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
have  each  its  peculiar  basis,  both  objective  and  subjective.  The  evan- 
gelical form  rests  on  the  Scriptures  as  its  objective  ground;  and  its  in- 
ward or  subjective  ground  is  an  enlightened  conviction  of  sin.  The 
ritual  system  rests  outwardly  on  the  authority  of  the  Church,  or  tradi- 
tion ;  inwardly  on  a  vague  religious  sentiment.  The  rationalistic  rests 
on  the  human  understanding,  and  internally  on  indifierence.  These 
are  general  remarks,  and  true  only  in  the  general.  Perhaps  few 
persons  are  under  the  influence  of  any  one  of  these  forms,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  others ;  in  very  few,  is  the  ground  of  belief  exclusively 
the  Bible,  tradition,  or  reason.  Yet  as  general  remarks  they  appear  to 
us  correct,  and  may  serve  to  characterize  the  comprehensive  forms 
which  the  Christian  religion  has  been  found  to  assume. 

The  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  starts  with  the  assumption  that 
all  men  are  under  the  condemnation  and  power  of  sin.  This  is 
assumed  by  the  sacred  writers  as  a  fact  of  consciousness,  and  is  made 
the  ground  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  redemption.  From  the  guilt  of 
sin  there  is  no  method  of  deliverance  but  through  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  and  no  Avay  in  which  freedom  from  its  power  can  be  obtained, 
but  through  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit.  No  man  who  is  not  united 
to  Christ  by  a  living  faith  is  a  partaker  either  of  his  righteousness  or 
Spirit,  and  every  man  who  does  truly  believe,  is  a  partaker  of  both,  so 
as  to  be  both  justified  and  sanctified.  This  union  v/ith  Christ  by  the 
indwelling  of  his  Spirit  is  always  manifested  by  the  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness ;  by  love,  joy,  peace,  long-sufiering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith, 
meekness,  temperance.  Where  these  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are,  there,  and 
not  elsewhere,  is  the  Spirit;  and  where  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  union 
with  Christ ;  and  where  union  with  Christ  is,  there  is  membership  in 
his  body,  which  is  the  Church.  True  believers,  therefore,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  are  the  xX-qrot,  the  hXexrot,  the  hxXi^ata.  This  is  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  evangelical  theory  respecting  the  Church. 
It  is  the  only  view  at  all  consistent  with  the  evangelical  system  of  doe- 


THEORIES  OF  THE  CHUECH.  41 

trine ;  and  as  a  historical  fact,  it  is  the  view  to  which  those  doctrines 
have  uniformly  led.  If  a  man  holds  that  the  Church  is  the  body  of 
Christ ;  that  the  body  of  Christ  consists  of  those  in  whom  he  dwells  by 
his  Spirit ;  that  it  is  by  faith  we  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  that  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  is  always  manifested  by  his  fruits ; 
then  he  must  hold  that  no  man  who  does  not  possess  that  faith  which 
works  by  love,  is  united  to  Christ  or  a  member  of  his  Church ;  and 
that  all,  no  matter  how  else  they  may  differ,  or  where  they  may  dwell, 
who  have  that  faith,  are  members  of  that  body,  which  is  his  Church. 
Such  is  the  unavoidable  conclusion  to  which  the  evangelical  system 
leads  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church.  The  body  to  whom  the  attri- 
butes, the  promises,  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  belong,  consists  of 
all  true  believers.  This  also  is  the  turning  point  between  the  evan- 
gelical and  ritual  theories,  on  which  all  other  questions  concerning  the 
Church  depend.  ^-To  the  question,  what  is  the  Church ;  or,  who  con- 
stitute the  Church  ?  the  Evangelical  answer,  and  must  answer.  True 
_believerj.  The  answer  of  the  Ritualists  is,  The  organized  professors 
of  the  true  religion  subject  to  lawful  pastors.  And  according  as  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  answers  is  adopted,  the  one  or  the  other 
theory  with  its  consequences  of  necessity  follows.^ 

The  Church,  in  that  sense  in  which  it  is  the  heir  of  the  promises  and 
prerogatives  granted  in  the  word  of  God,  consists  of  true  believers,  is  in 
one  aspect  a  visible,  in  another,  an  invisible  body.  First,  believers  as 
men  are  visible  beings,  and  by  their  confession  and  fruits  are  visible  as 
believers.  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  In  their  character 
also  of  believers,  they  associate  for  the  purposes  of  worship  and  disci- 
pline, and  have  their  proper  officers  for  instruction  and  government, 
and  thus  appear  before  the  world  as  a  visible  body.  And  secondly,  as 
God  has  not  given  to  men  the  power  to  search  the  heart,  the  terms 
of  admission  into  this  body,  or  in  other  words,  the  terms  of  Christian 
communion,  are  not  any  infallible  evidence  of  regeneration  and  true 
faith,  but  a  credible  profession.  And  as  many  make  that  profession 
who  are  either  self-deceived  or  deceivers,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
many  are  of  the  Church,  who  are  not  in  the  Church.  Hence  arises  the 
distinction  between  the  real  and  the  nominal,  or,  as  it  is  commonly  ex- 
pressed, the  invisible  and  the  visible  Church.  A  distinction  Avhich 
is  unavoidable,  and  which  is  made  in  all  analogous  cases,  and  which  is 
substantially  and  of  necessity  admitted  in  this  case  even  by  those 
whose  whole  theory  rests  on  the  denial  of  it.  The  Bible  promises 
great  blessings  to  Christians ;  but  there  are  real  Christians  and  nomi- 
nal Christians  ;  and  no  one  hesitates  to  make  the  distinction  and  to 
confine  the  application  of  these  promises  to  those  who  are  Christians  at 
heart,  and  not  merely  in  name.    The  Scriptures  promise  eternal  life  to 


42  CHURCH  POLITY. 

believers.  But  there  is  a  dead,  as  well  as  a  living  faith ;  there  are  true 
believers,  and  those  who  profess  faith  without  possessing  it.  No  one 
here  again  refuses  to  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  the  distinction,  or 
hesitates  to  say  that  the  promise  of  eternal  life  belongs  only  to  those 
who  truly  believe.  In  like  manner  there  is  a  real  and  a  nominal,  a 
visible  and  an  invisible  Church,  a  body  consisting  of  those  who  are  truly 
united  to  Christ,  and  a  body  consisting  of  all  who  i^rofess  such  union. 
AVhy  should  not  this  distinction  be  allowed  ?  How  can  what  is  said  in 
Scripture  of  the  Church,  be  applied  to  the  body  of  professors,  any 
more  than  what  is  said  of  believers  can  be  applied  to  the  body  of 
professed  believers  ?  There  is  the  same  necessity  for  the  distinctiT)n 
in  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other.  And  accordingly  it  is  in  fact  made 
by  those  who  in  terms  deny  it.  Thus  Mr.  Palmer,  an  Oxford  wri- 
ter, says.  The  Church,  as  composed  of  its  vital  and  essential  mem- 
bers, means  "the  elect  and  sanctified  children  of  God;"  and  adds,  "it 
is  generally  allowed  that  the  wicked  belong  only  externally  to  the 
Church."  Vol.  I.  p.  28,  58.  Even  Romanists  are  forced  to  make  the 
same  admission,  when  they  distinguish  between  the  living  and  dead 
members  of  the  Church.  As  neither  they  nor  Mr.  Palmer  will  contend 
that  the  promises  pertain  to  the  "  dead  "  jnembers,  or  those  who  are  only 
externally  united  to  the  Church,  but  must  admit  them  to  belong  to  the 
"essential"  or  "living"  members,  they  concede  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  the  evangelical  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church,  viz. : 
that  it  consists  of  true  believers,  and  is  visible  as  they  are  visible  as 
believers  by  their  profession  and  fruits,  and  that  those  associated  with 
them  in  external  union,  are  the  Church  only  outwardly,  and  not  as  con- 
stituent members  of  the  body  of  Christ  and  temple  of  God.  In  this 
concession  is  involved  an  admission  of  the  distinction  for  which  the 
evangelical  contend  between  the  Church  invisible  and  visible,  between 
nominal  and  real  Christians,  between  true  and  professing  believers. 

Such  being  the  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  of  its  visibility, 
to  which  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  necessarily  leads,  it  is  easy 
to  see  wherein  the  Church  is  one.  If  the  Church  consists  of  those  who 
are  united  to  Christ  and  are  the  members  of  his  body,  it  is  evident 
that  the  bond  which  unites  them  to  him,  unites  them  to  each  oth^. 
They  are  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  every  one  members  of  one  another. 
The  vital  bond  between  Christ  and  his  body  is  the  Holy  Spirit ;  which 
he  gives  to  dwell  in  all  who  are  united  to  him  by  faith.  The  indwell- 
ing of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  the  essential  or  vital  bond  of  unity  in  the 
Church.  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  for  we  are 
partakers  of  that  one  Spirit.  The  human  body  is  one,  because  animated 
by  one  soul ;  and  the  Church  is  one  because  actuated  by  one  Spirit. 

As  the  Spirit  wherever  he  dwells  manifests  himself  as  the  Spirit  of 


THEOEIES  OF  THE  CHURCH.  43 

truth,  of  love,  and  of  holiness,  it  follows  that  those  in  whom  he  dwells 
must  be  one  in  faith,  in  love,  and  holy  obedience.  Those  whom  he 
guides,  he  guides  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  as  he  cannot 
contradict  himself,  those  under  his  guidance,  must  in  all  essential 
matters,  believe  the  same  truths.  And  as  the  Spirit  of  love,  he  leads 
all  under  his  influence  to  love  the  same  objects,  the  same  God  and 
Father  of  all,  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  to  love  each  other  as 
brethren.  This  inward,  spiritual  union  must  express  itself  outwardly, 
in  the  profession  of  the  same  faith,  in  the  cheerful  recognition  of  all 
Christians  as  Christians,  that  is,  in  the  communion  of  saints,  and  in 
mutual  subjection.  Every  individual  Christian  recognizes  the  right  of 
his  fellow-Christians  to  exercise  over  him  a  watch  and  care,  and  feels 
his  obligation  to  submit  to  them  in  the  Lord. 

Since  however  the  Church  is  too  widely  diffused  for  the  whole  to 
exercise  their  watch  and  care  over  each  particular  part,  there  is  a 
necessity  for  more  restricted  organizations.  Believers  therefore  of  the 
same  neighbourhood,  of  the  same  province,  of  the  same  nation,  may  and 
must  unite  by  some  closer  bond  than  that  which  externally  binds  the 
Church  as  a  whole  together.  The  Church  of  England  is  one,  in  virtue 
of  its  subjection  to  a  common  head,  and  the  adoption  of  common  for- 
mularies of  worship  and  discipline.  This  more  intimate  union  of  its 
several  parts  with  each  other,  does  not  in  any  measure  violate  its  unity 
with  the  Episcopal  body  in  this  country.  And  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  though  subject  to  its  own  peculiar  judica- 
tories, is  still  one  with  the  Church  of  Scotland.  It  is  evident,  and 
generally  conceded,  that  there  is  nothing,  in  independent  organization, 
in  itself  considered,  inconsistent  with  unity,  so  long  as  a  common  faith 
is  professed,  and  mutual  recognition  is  preserved.  And  if  independent 
organization  on  account  of  difference  of  locality  or  of  civil  relations,  is 
compatible  with  unity,  so  also  is  independent  organization  on  the 
ground  of  diversity  of  language.  The  former  has  its  foundation  in 
expediency  and  convenience,  so  has  the  latter.  It  is  not  true,  therefore, 
as  Ritualists  teach,  that  there  cannot  be  two  independent  Churches,  in 
the  same  place.  Englishmen  in  Germany  and  Germans  in  England 
may  organize  Churches  not  in  organic  connection  with  those  around 
them,  with  as  much  propriety  as  Episcopalians  in  England  and  Episco- 
palians in  Scotland  may  have  independent  organizations. 

Still  'further,  as  independent  or  separate  organization  is  admitted  to    ; 
be  consistent  with  true  unity,  by  all  but  Romanists,  it  follows  that  any 
reason  not  destructive   of  the  principle  of  unity,  may  be  made  the 
ground  of  such  separate  organization ;  not  merely  difference  as  to  loca-  j 
tion,  or  diversity  of  language,  but  diversity  of  opinion.    It  is  on  all  ■ 
hands  conceded  that  there  may  be  difference  of  opinion,  within  certain 


44  CHURCH  POLITY. 

limits,  without  violating  unity  of  faith ;  and  it  is  also  admitted  that 
there  may  be  independent  organization,  for  considerations  of  conve- 
nience, without  violating  the  unity  of  communion.    It  therefore  follows, 
that  where  such  diversity  of  opinion  exists,  as  to  render  such  separate 
organization  convenient,  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  not  violated  by 
such  separation.     Diversity  of  opinion  is  indeed  an  evidence  of  imper- 
fection, and  therefore  such  separations  are  evil,  so  far  as  they  are  evi- 
i  dence  of  want  of  perfect  union  in  faith.     But  they  are  a  less  evil,  than 
'  either  hypocrisy  or  contention ;  and  therefore,  the  diversity  of  sects, 
which  exist  in  the  Christian  world,  is  to  be  regarded  as  incident  to  im- 
perfect knowledge  and  imperfect  sanctification.     They  are  to  be  de- 
plored, as  every  other  evidence  of  such  imperfection  is  to  be  regretted, 
yet  the  evil  is  not  to  be  magnified  above  its  just  dimensions.     So  long 
as  unity  of  faith,  of  love,  and  of  obedience  is  preserved,  the  unity  of  the 
I  Church  is  as  to  its  essential  principle  safe.   It  need  hardly  be  remarked, 
]  that  it  is  admitted  that  all  separate  organization  on  inadequate  grounds, 
1  and  all  diversity  of  opinion  affecting  important  doctrines,  and  all  want 
\  of  Christian  love  and  especially  a  sectarian,  unchurching  spirit,  are 
opposed  to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  either  mar  or  destroy  it  ac- 
cording to  their  nature. 

The  sense  in  which  the  Church  is  catholic  depends  on  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  one.  It  is  catholic  only  as  it  is  one.  If  its  unity,  therefore, 
depends  on  subjection  to  one  visible  head,  to  one  supreme  governing 
tribunal,  to  the  adoption  of  the  same  form  of  organization,  then  of 
course  its  extent  or  catholicity  are  limited  by  these  conditions.  If  such 
be  the  nature  of  its  oneness,  then  all  not  subject  to  such  visible  head, 
or  governing  tribunal,  or  who  do  not  adopt  the  form  of  government 
/  assumed  to  be  necessary,  are  excluded  from  the  Church.  But  if  the 
unity  of  the  Church  arises  from  union  with  Christ  and  the  indwelling 
of  his  Spirit,  then  all  who  are  thus  united  to  him,  are  members  of  his 
Church,  no  matter  what  their  external  ecclesiastical  connections  may 
[  be,  or  whether  they  sustain  any  such  relations  at  all.  And  as  all 
1^  really  united  to  Christ  are  the  true  Church,  so  all  who  profess  such 
Union  by  professing  to  receive  his  doctrines  and  obey  his  laws,  consti- 
tute the  professing  or  visible  Church.  It  is  plain  therefore  that  the 
evangelical  are  the  most  truly  catholic,  because,  embracing  in  their 
definition  of  the  Church  all  who  profess  the  true  religion,  they  include 
a  far  wider  range  in  the  Church  catholic,  than  those  who  confine  their 
fellowship  to  those  who  adopt  the  same  form  of  government,  or  are 
subject  to  the  same  visible  head. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how,  according  to  the  evangelical  system  the  question. 
What  is  a  true  Church  ?  is  to  be  answered.  Starting  with  the  principle 
that  all  men  are  sinners,  that  the  only  method  of  salvation  is  by  faith 


THEORIES  OF  THE  CHUECH.  45 

in  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  all  who  believe  in  Him,  and  show  the  fruits 
of  faith  in  a  holy  life,  are  the  children  of  God,  the  called  according  to 
his  purpose,  that  is,  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  the  xkrjroi, 
the  ix/lrjaia,  that  system  must  teach  that  all  true  believers  are  members 
of  the  true  Church,  and  all  professors  of  the  true  faith  are  members  of 
the  visible  Church.  This  is  the  only  conclusion  to  which  that  system 
can  lead.  And  therefore  the  only  essential  mark  of  a  true  Church  V, 
which ^  can  admit,  is  the  profession  of  the  true  religion.  Any  indi- 
vidual nian  who  makes  a  credible  profession  of  religion  we  are  bound 
to  regard  as  a  Christian ;  any  society  of  such  men,  united  for  the 
purpose  of  worship  and  discipline,  we  are  bound  to  regard  as  a 
Church.  As  there  is  endless  diversity  as  to  the  degree  of  exactness 
with  which  individual  Christians  conform,  in  their  doctrines,  spirit  and 
deportment,  to  the  word  of  God,  so  there  is  great  diversity  as  to  the 
degree  in  which  the  different  Churches  conform  to  the  same  standard. 
But  as  in  the  case  of  the  individual  professor  we  can  reject  none  who 
does  not  reject  Christ,  so  in  regard  to  Churches,  we  can  disown  none  ■^*- 
who  holds  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

Against  this  simple  and  decisive  test  of  a  true  Church  it  is  objected 
on  the  one  hand,  that  it  is  too  latitudinarian.  The  force  of  this  objection 
depends  upon  the  standard  of  liberality  adopted.  It  is  of  course  too 
latitudinarian  for  Romanists  and  High  Churchmen,  as  well  as  for 
rigid  sectarians.  But  is  it  more  liberal  than  the  Bible,  and  our  own 
Confession  of  Faith  ?  Let  any  man  decide  this  question  by  ascertaining 
what  the  Bible  teaches  as  the  true  answer  to  the  question,  what  is  a 
Christian  ?  And  what  is  a  Church  ?  You  cannot  possibly  make  your 
notion  of  a  Church  narrower  than  your  notion  of  a  Christian.  If  a 
true  Christian  is  a  true  believer,  and  a  professed  believer  is  a  professing 
Christian,  then  of  course  a  true  Church  is  a  body  of  true  Christians,  a  4- 
professsing  or  visible  Church  is  a  body  of  professing  Christians.  This 
,  is  the  precise  doctrine  ofjoux  standards,  which  teach  that  the  Church 
consists  of  all  those  who  profess  the  true-religion. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  is  objected  that  it  cannot  be  expected 
of  ordinary  Christians  that  they  should  decide  between  the  conflicting 
creeds  of  rival  churches,  and  therefore  the  profession  of  the  truth 
cannot  be  the  mark  of  a  true  Church.  To  this  objection  it  may  be 
answered  first,  that  it  is  only  the  plain  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  ^ 
gospel  which  are  necessary  to  salvation,  and  therefore  it  is  the  profes- 
sion of  those  doctrines  alone,  which  is  necessary  to  establish  the  claim 
of  any  society  to  be  regarded  as  a  portion  of  the  true  Church. 
Secondly,  that  the  objection  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  such  doc- 
trines cannot  by  the  people  be  gathered  from  the  word  of  God.  If 
however  the  Scriptures  are  the  rule  of  faith,  so  plain  that  all  men  may 


46  CHURCH  POLITY. 

learn  from  them  wliat  they  must  believe  and  do  in  order  to  be  saved, 
then  do  they  furnish  an  available  standard  by  which  they  may  judge 
of  the  faith  both  of  individuals  and  of  Churches.  Fourthly,  this  right 
to  judge  and  the  promise  of  divine  guidance  in  judging  are  given  in 
the  Scriptures  to  all  the  people  of  God,  and  the  duty  to  exercise  the 
right  is  enjoined  upon  them  as  a  condition  of  salvation.  They  are  pro- 
nounced accursed  if  they  do  not  try  the  spirits,  or  if  they  receive  any 
other  gospel  than  that  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  And  fifthly,  this 
doctrinal  test  is  beyond  comparison  more  easy  of  application  than  any 
other.  How  are  the  unlearned  to  know  that  the  Church  with  which 
they  are  connected  has  been  derived,  without  schism  or  excommunica- 
tion, from  the  Churches  founded  by  the  apostles  ?  What  can  they  tell 
of  the  apostolical  succession  of  pastors  ?  These  are  mere  historical  ques- 
tions, the  decision  of  which  requires  great  learning,  and  involves  no 
test  of  character,  and  yet  the  salvation  of  men  is  made  to  depend  on 
that  decision.  All  the  marks  of  the  Church  laid  down  by  Romanists 
and  High  Churchmen,  are  liable  to  two  fatal  objections.  They  can  be 
verified,  if  at  all,  only  by  the  learned.  And  secondly,  when  verified, 
they  decide  nothing.  A  Church  may  have  been  originally  founded 
by  the  apostles,  and  possess  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  pastors,  and 
yet  be  a  synagogue  of  Satan. 

The  theory  of  the  Church,  then,  which  of  necessity  follows  from  the 
evangelical  system  of  doctrine  is,  that  all  who  really  believe  the  gospel 
constitute  the  true  Church,  and  all  who  profess  such  faith  constitute 
the  visible  Church ;  that  in  virtue  of  the  profession  of  this  common 
faith,  and  of  allegiance  to  the  same  Lord,  they  are  one  body,  and  in 
this  one  body  there  may  rightly  be  subordinate  and  more  intimate 
unions  of  certain  parts,  for  the  purposes  of  combined  action,  and  of 
mutual  oversight  and  consolation.  When  it  is  said,  in  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  that  out  of  this  visible  Church,  there  is  no  ordinary  possi- 
bility of  salvation,  it  is  only  saying  that  there  is  no  salvation  without 
the  knowledge  and  profession  of  the  gospel ;  that  there  is  no  other 
name  by  which  we  must  be  saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
proposition  that  "  out  of  the  Church  there  is  no  salvation  "  is  true  or 
false,  liberal  or  illiberal,  according  to  the  latitude  given  to  the  word 
Church.  There  was  not  long  since,  and  probably  there  is  still  in  New 
York  a  little  society  of  Sandemanian  Baptists,  consisting  of  seven 
persons,  two  men  and  five  women,  who  hold  that  they  constitute  the 
whole  Church  in  America.  In  their  mouths  the  proposition  above 
stated  would  indeed  be  restrictive.  In  the  mouth  of  a  Romanist,  it 
means  there  is  no  salvation  to  any  who  do  not  belong  to  that  body 
which  acknowledges  the  Pope  as  its  head.  In  the  mouths  of  High 
Churchmen,  it  means  there  is  no  salvation  to  those  who  are  not  in  sub- 


THEOEIES  OF  THE  CHURCH.  47 

jection  to  some  prelate  wlio  is  in  communion  "with  the  Church 
cathoHc.  While  in  the  mouths  of  Protestants,  it  means  there  is  no 
salvation  without  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  i 

The  system,  which  for  the  sake  of  distinction  has  been  called  the 
Ritual,  agrees  of  course  with  the  evangelical  as  to  many  points  of  doc- 
trine. It  includes  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  of  original  sin,  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  a  satis- 
faction to  satisfy  divine  justice,  of  the  supernatural  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  and  sanctification,  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  and  of  an  eternal  judgment.  The  great  distinction  lies  in  the 
answer  which  it  gives  the  question,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  or  by 
what  means  does  the  soul  become  interested  in  the  redemption  of 
Christ?  According  to  the  Evangelical  system,  it  is  faith.  Every 
sinner  who  hears  the  gospel  has  unimpeded  access  to  the  Son  of  God, 
and  can,  in  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance,  go  immediately  to 
him,  and  obtain  eternal  life  at  his  hands.  According  to  the  Ritual 
system,  he  must  go  to  the  priest ;  the  sacraments  are  the  channels  of 
grace  and  salvation,  and  the  sacraments  can  only  be  lawfully  or  effect- 
ively administered  by  men  prelatically  ordained.  The  doctrine  of  the 
priestly  character  of  the  Christian  ministry,  therefore,  is  one  of  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  Ritual  system.  A  priest  is  a  man 
ordained  for  men,  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  offer  gifts  and  sacri- 
fices. The  very  nature  of  the  office  supposes  that  those  for  whom  he 
acts,  have  not  in  themselves  liberty  of  access  to  God ;  and  therefore 
the  Ritual  system  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  we  have  not  this 
liberty  of  drawing  nigh  to  God.  It  is  only  by  the  ministerial  inter- 
vention of  the  Christian  priesthood,  that  the  sinner  can  be  reconciled 
and  made  a  partaker  of  salvation.  Here  then  is  a  broad  line  of  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  systems  of  doctrines.  This  was  one  of  the 
three  great  doctrines  rejected  by  Protestants,  at  the  time  of  the  Refor- 
mation. They  affirmed  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  asserting  that  atl 
have  access  to  God  through  the  High  Priest  of  their  profession,  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  they  denied  the  official  priesthood  of  the  clergy. 

The  second  great  distinction  between  the  two  systems  of  doctrine,  is 
the  place  they  assign  the  sacraments.  The  evangelical  admit  them  to 
be  efficacious  signs  of  grace,  but  they  ascribe  their  efficacy  not  to  any 
virtue  in  them  or  in  him  by  whom  they  are  administered,  but  to  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  in  them  that  do  by  faith  receive  them.  Ritual- 
ists attribute  to  them  an  inherent  virtue,  aft  opus  operatum  efficacy, 
independent  of  the  moral  state  of  the  recipient.  According,  to  the  one 
system,  the  sacraments  are  necessary  only  as  matters  of  precept ;  ac- 
cording to  the  other,  they  have  the  necessity  of  means.  According 
to  the  one,  we  are  required  to  receive  baptism,  just  as  we  are  under 


48  CHURCH  POLITY. 

obligation  to  keep  tlie  Sabbath,  or  as  the  Jews  were  required  to  be 
circumcised,  and  yet  we  are  taught  that  if  any  man  kept  the  law,  his 
uncircumcision  should  be  counted  for  circumcision.  And  thus  also,  if 
any  one  truly  repents  and  believes,  his  want  of  baptism  cannot  make 
the  promise  of  God  of  none  eflfect.  The  neglect  of  such  instituted  rites 
may  involve  more  or  less  sin,  or  none  at  all,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances. It  is  necessary  only  as  obedience  to  any  other  positive  insti- 
tution is  necessary ;  that  is,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  the  non-performance 
of  which  ignorance  or  disability  may  palliate  or  excuse.  According  to 
the  latter  system,  however,  we  are  required  to  receive  baptism  be- 
cause it  is  the  only  appointed  means  of  conveying  to  us  the  benefits  of 
redemption.  It  is  of  the  same  necessity  as  faith.  It  is  a  sine  qua  non. 
This  alters  the  whole  nature  of  the  case,  and  changes  in  a  great 
measure  the  plan  of  redemption. 

The  theory  of  the  Church  connected  with  the  Eitual  system  of  doc- 
trine, that  system  which  makes  ministers  priests,  and  the  sacraments 
the  only  appointed  channels  of  communicating  to  men  the  benefits  of 
redemption,  is  implied  in  the  nature  of  the  doctrines  themselves.  It 
makes  the  Church  so  prominent  that  Christ  and  the  truth  are  eclipsed. 
This  made  Dr.  Parr  call  the  whole  system  Churchianity,  in  distinction 
from  Christianity. 

If  our  Lord,  when  he  ascended  to  heaven,  clothed  his  apostles 
with  all  the  power  which  he  himself  possessed  in  his  human  nature, 
so  that  they  were  to  the  Church  what  he  himself  had  been,  its  in- 
fallible teachers  and  the  dispensers  of  pardon  and  grace ;  and  if 
in  accordance  with  that  assumption,  the  apostles  communicated  this 
power  to  their  successors,  the  prelates,  then  it  follows  that  these  pre- 
lates and  those  whom  they  may  authorize  to  act  in  their  name,  are 
the  dispensers  of  truth  and  salvation,  and  communion  with  them, 
or  subjection  to  their  authority,  is  essential  to  union  with  the  Church 
and  to  eternal  life.  The  Church  is  thus  represented  as  a  store- 
house of  divine  grace ;  whose  treasures  are  in  the  custody  of  its 
ofiicers,  to  be  dealt  out  by  them,  and  at  their  discretion.  It  is  like 
one  of  the  rich  convents  of  the  middle  ages  ;  to  whose  gates  the  people 
repaired  at  stated  times  for  food.  The  convent  was  the  store-house. 
Those  who  wanted  food  must  come  to  its  gates.  Food  was  given  at 
the  discretion  of  its  ofiicers,  to  what  persons  and  on  what  conditions 
they  saw  fit.  To  obtain  supplies,  it  was  of  course  necessary  to  recog- 
nize the  convent  as  the  depository,  and  its  officers  as  the  distributors ; 
and  none  who  refused  such  recognition,  could  be  fed  from  its  stores. 
The  analogy  fails  indeed  as  to  an  essential  point.  Food  could  be  ob- 
tained elsewhere  than  at  the  convent  gates ;  and  none  need  apply,  who 
did  not  choose  to  submit  to  the  prescribed  conditions.     Whereas  ac- 


THEOEIES  OF  THE  CHURCH.  49 

cording  to  Ritualists,  the  food  of  the  soul  can  be  obtained  no^Yhere  but 
at  the  doors  of  the  Church  ;  and  those  who  refuse  to  receive  it  there, 
and  at  the  hands  of  authorized  ministers,  and  on  the  terms  they  pre- 
scribe, cannot  receive  it  at  all.  Unless  in  communion  of  the  Church  we 
cannot  be  saved  ;  and  unless  in  subjection  to  prelates  deriving. the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  by  regular  succession  from  the  apostles,  we  cannot  be  in 
communion  of  the  Church.  The  subjection  to  the  bishop,  therefore,  is 
an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation.  He  is  the  centre  of  unity ;  the 
bond  of  union  between  the  believer  and  the  Church,  and  thus  with  Christ. 

The  unity  of  the  Church,  according  to  this  theory,  is  no  longer  a 
spiritual  union ;  not  a  unity  of  faith  and  love,  but  a  union  of  associa- 
tion, a  union  of  connection  with  the  authorized  dispensers  of  saving 
grace.  It  is  not  enough  for  any  society  of  men  to  show  that  they  are 
united  in  faith  with  the  apostles,  and  in  heart  with  all  the  jjeople  of 
God,  and  with  Christ  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit,  as  manifested  by 
his  fruits,  they  cannot  be  recognized  as  any  portion  of  the  true  Church, 
unless  they  can  prove  historically  their  descent  as  a  society  from  the 
apostles  through  the  line  of  bishops.  They  must  prove  themselves  a 
Church,  just  as  a  man  proves  his  title  to  an  estate.  No  Church,  says 
Mr.  Palmer,  not  founded  by  the  apostles,  or  regularly  descended  from 
such  a  Church  without  separation  or  excommunication,  can  be  con- 
sidered a  true  Church ;  and  every  society  that  can  make  out  such  a 
descent  is  a  true  Church,  for  a  Church  can  only  cease  to  be  united  to 
Christ  by  its  own  act  of  separation,  or  by  the  lawful  judgment  of 
others.  Vol.  I.  p.  84. 

This  also  is  what  is  meant  by  apostolicity  as  an  attribute  and  mark 
of  the  Church.  A  Church  is  not  apostolical  because  it  holds  the  doc- 
trines, and  conforms  to  the  institutions  of  the  apostles,  but  because  it  is 
historically  derived  from  them  by  an  uninterrupted  descent.  "Any 
society  which  is  in  fact  derived  from  the  apostles,  must  be  so  by 
spiritual  propagation,  or  derivation,  or  union,  not  by  separation  from 
the  apostles  or  the  Churches  actually  derived  from  their  preaching, 
under  pretence  of  establishing  a  new  system  of  supj)osed  apostolic  per- 
fection. Derivation  from  the  apostles,  is,  in  the  former  case,  a  reality, 
just  as  much  as  the  descent  of  an  illustrious  family  from  its  original 
founder.  In  the  latter  case  it  is  merely  an  assumption  in  which  the 
most  essential  links  of  the  genealogy  are  wanting."  Palmer,  Vol.  I.  p. 
160.  This  descent  must  be  through  prelates,  who  are  the  bonds  of  con- 
nection between  the  apostles  and  the  different  portions  of  the  one 
catholic  and  apostolic  Church.  Without  regular  consecration  there 
can  be  no  bishop,  and  without  a  bishop  no  Church,  and  out  of  the 
Church  no  salvation. 

The  application  of  these  principles  as  made  by  their  advocates, 
4 


50  CHUECH  POLITY. 

reveals  their  nature  and  importance,  more  distinctly  than  any  mere 
verbal  statement  of  them.  The  Methodists,  for  example,  though  they 
adopt  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  have  the 
same  form  of  government,  are  not  and  never  can  become,  according  to 
this  theory,  a  part  of  the  Church,  because  the  line  of  descent  was 
broken  by  Wesley.  He  was  but  a  presbyter  and  could  not  continue 
the  succession  of  the  ministry.  A  fatal  flaw  thus  exists  in  their  eccle- 
siastical pedigree,  and  they  are  hopelessly  cut  off  fi;om  the  Church  and 
from  salvation. 

The  Roman  and  Eastern  Churches,  on  the  contrary,  are  declared  to 
be  true  Churches,  because  descended  from  the  communions  founded  by 
the  apostles,  and  because  they  have  never  been  separated  from  the 
Church  catholic  either  by  voluntary  secession  or  by  excommunication. 
The  Nestorians,  on  the  other  hand,  are  declared  to  be  no  jDart  of  the  true 
Church ;  for  though  they  may  now  have  the  orthodox  faith,  and  though 
they  have  preserved  the  succession  of  bishops,  they  were  excommuni- 
cated in  the  fifth  century,  and  that  sentence  has  never  been  revoked. 

The  Church  of  England  is  declared  to  be  a  true  Church,  because  it 
has  preserved  the  succession,  and  because,  although  excommunicated 
by  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  sentence  has  not  been  ratified  by  the 
Church  universal.  All  other  ecclesiastical  societies  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  whether  Romanist  or  Protestant,  are  pronounced  to  be 
cut  off  from  the  Church  and  out  of  the  way  of  salvation.  This  position 
is  openly  avowed,  and  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  theory.  As 
the  Romanists  in  those  countries,  though  they  have  the  succession,  yet 
they  voluntarily  separate  themselves  from  the  Church  of  England, 
which  as  that  is  a  true  Church,  is  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
Church  of  Christ,  a  siu  which  is  declared  to  be  of  the  same  turpitude  as 
adultery  and  murder,  and  as  certainly  excludes  from  heaven.  As  to 
all  other  Protestant  bodies,  the  case  is  still  plainer.  They  have  not 
only  separated  from  the  Church,  but  lost  the  succession,  and  are 
therefore  out  of  the  reach  of  the  benefits  of  redemption,  which  flow 
only  in  the  line  of  that  succession. 

The  Church  of  Scotland  is  declared  to  be  in  the  same  deplorable 
condition.  Though  under  the  Stuarts  episcopacy  was  established  in 
that  country,  yet  it  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the  people ;  and  under 
William  III.  it  Avas,  by  a  joint  act  of  the  Assembly  and  Parliament 
formally  rejected ;  they  thereby  separated  themselves  from  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  "  and  all  the  temporal  enactments  and  powers 
of  the  whole  world  could  not  cure  this  fault,  nor  render  them  a  portion 
of  the  Church  of  Christ."  Palmer,  Vol.  I.  p.  529.  The  same  judg- 
ment is  pronounced  on  all  the  Churches  in  this  country  except  the 
Church  of  England.     The  Romanists  here  arc  excluded,  because  they 


THEORIES  OF  THE  CHUECH.  5I 

are  derived  from  the  schismatic  Papists  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
or  have  intruded  into  sees  where  bishops  deriving  authority  from  the 
Anglican  Church  already  presided.  How  this  can  be  historically 
made  out  as  regards  Maryland  and  Louisiana,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say. 
The  theory  forbids  the  existence  of  two  separate  Churches  in  the  same 
place.  If  the  Church  of  England  in  Maryland  is  a  true  Church,  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  not.  Bishop  Whittingham,  therefore,  with  perfect 
consistency,  always  speaks  of  the  Romanists  in  the  United  States  as 
schismatics,  and  schismatics  of  course  are  out  of  the  Church.  As  to 
non-episcopal  communions  in  this  country,  they  are  not  only  declared 
to  be  in  a  state  of  schism,  but  to  be  destitute  of  the  essential  elements 
of  the  Church.  They  are  all,  therefore,  of  necessity  excluded  from  the 
pale  of  the  Church.  The  advocates  of  this  theory,  when  pressed  with 
the  obvious  objection  that  multitudes  thus  excluded  from  the  Church, 
and  consequently  from  salvation,  give  every  evidence  of  piety,  meet 
the  objection  by  quoting  Augustine,  "  Let  us  hold  it  as  a  thing  un- 
shaken and  firm,  that  no  good  men  can  divide  themselves  from  the 
Church."  "  It  is  not  indeed  to  be  supposed  or  believed  for  a  moment," 
adds  Mr.  Palmer,  "  that  divine  grace  would  permit  the  really  holy  and 
justified  members  of  Christ  to  fall  from  the  way  of  life.  He  would 
only  permit  the  unsanctified,  the  enemies  of  Christ  to  sever  themselves 
from  that  fountain,  where  his  Spirit  is  freely  given."  Voluntary  sepa- 
ration therefore  from  the  Church,  he  concludes  is  "a  sin  which,  unless 
repented  of,  is  eternally  destructive  of  the  soul.  The  heinous  nature 
of  this  oflTence  is  incapable  of  exaggeration,  because  no  human  imagi- 
nation, and  no  human  tongue  can  adequately  describe  its  enormity." 
Vol.  I.  p.  68.  The  only  Church  in  Great  Britain,  according  to  Mr. 
Palmer,  be  it  remembered,  is  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  only 
Church  in  this  country  according  to  the  same  theory  and  its  advocates, 
is  the  Episcopal  Church.  Thus  the  knot  is  fairly  cut.  It  is  appa- 
rently a  formidable  difficulty,  that  there  should  be  more  piety  out  of 
the  Church,  than  in  it.  But  the  difiiculty  vanishes  at  once,  when  we 
know  that  "  no  good  man  can  divide  himself  from  the  Church." 

If  this  theory  were  new,  if  it  were  now  presented  for  the  first  time,  it 
would  be  rejected  with  indignation  and  derision ;  indignation  at  its  mon- 
strous and  unscriptural  claims,  and  derision  at  the  weakness  of  the  argu- 
ments by  which  it  is  supported.  But  age  renders  even  imbecility  ven- 
erable. It  must  also  be  conceded  that  a  theory  which  has  for  centuries 
prevailed  in  the  Church,  must  have  something  to  recommend  it.  It  is 
not  diflacult  to  discover,  in  the  present  case,  what  that  something  is.  The 
Ritual  theory  of  the  Church  is  perfectly  simple  and  consistent.  It  has 
the  first  and  most  important  element  of  success  in  being  intelligible. 
That  Christ  should  found  a  Church,  or  external  society,  giving  to  his 


52  CHUECH  POLITY. 

apostles  the  Holy  Spirit  to  render  them  infallible  in  teaching  and 
judging,  and  nuthorize  them  to  communicate  the  like  gift  to  their  suc- 
cessors to  the  end  of  time ;  and  make  it  a  condition  of  salvation  that 
all  should  recognize  their  spiritual  authority,  receive  their  doctrines 
and  submit  to  their  decisions,  declaring  that  what  they  bound  on  earth 
should  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  what  they  loosed  on  earth  should  be 
loosed  in  heaven,  is  precisely  the  plan  which  the  wise  men  of  this 
world  would  have  devised.  It  is  in  fact  that  which  they  have  con- 
structed. We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  wisdom  of  men  is 
foolishness  with  God. 

Again,  this  theory  admits  of  being  propounded  in  the  forms  of  truth. 
All  its  fundamental  principles  may  be  stated  in  a  form  to  command 
universal  assent.  It  is  true  that  the  Church  is  one,  that  it  is  catholic 
and  apostolical ;  that  it  has  the  power  of  authoritative  teaching 
and  judging;  that  out  of  its  pale  there  is  no  salvation.  But  this 
system  perverts  all  these  principles.  It  places  the  bond  of  unity  in 
the  wrong  place.  Instead  of  saying  with  Jerome,  Ecdesla  ihl  est,  ubi 
vera  fides  est,  or  with  Irenseus,  ubi  Spiritus  Dei,  illic  ecdesia,  they  as- 
sume that  the  Church  is  nowhere,  where  prelates  are  not.  The  true 
apostolicity  of  the  Church,  does  not  consist  in  an  external  descent  to 
be  historically  traced  from  the  early  Churches,  but  in  sameness  of  faith 
and  Spirit  with  the  apostles.  Separation  from  the  Church  is  indeed 
a  great  sin ;  but  there  is  no  separation  from  the  Church  involved 
in  withdrawing  from  an  external  body  whose  terms  of  communion 
hurt  the  enlightened  conscience;  provided  this  be  done  without  ex- 
communicating or  denouncing  those  who  are  really  the  people  of  God. 

The  great  advantage  of  this  theory,  however,  is  to  be  found  in  its 
adaptation  to  the  human  heart.  Most  men  who  live  where  the  gospel 
is  known,  desire  some  better  foundation  for  confidence  towards  God, 
than  their  own  good  works.  To  such  men  the  Church,  according  to 
this  theory,  presents  itself  as  an  Institute  of  Salvation ;  venerable  for 
its  antiquity,  attractive  from  the  number  and  rank  of  its  disciples,  and 
from  the  easy  terms  on  which  it  proffers  pardon  and  eternal  life. 
■\  There  are  three  very  comprehensive  classes  of  men  to  whom  *  this 
ti]  system  must  commend  itself.  The  first  consists  of  those  who  are  at 
^'  'once  ignorant  and  wicked.  The  degraded  inhabitants  of  Italy  and 
Portugal  have  no  doubt  of  their  salvation,  no  matter  how  Avicked  they 
may  be,  so  long  as  they  are  in  the  Church  and  submissive  to  officers 
and  rites.  The  second  includes  those  who  are  devout  and  at  the  same 
time  ignorant  of  the  Scriptures.  Such  men  feel  the  need  of  religion, 
of  communion  with  God,  and  of  preparation  for  heaven.  But  knowing 
nothing  of  the  gospel,  or  disliking  what  they  know,  a  form  of  religion 
which  is  laborious,  mystical,  and  ritual,  meets  all  their  necessities,  and 


I 


THEORIES  OF  THE  CHURCH.  53 

commands  their  homage.  The  third  class  consists  of  worldly  men, 
who  wish  to  enjoy  this  life  and  get  to  heaven  with  as  little  trouble  as 
possible.  Such  men,  the  world  over,  are  high-churchmen.  To  them  a 
Church  which  claims  the  secure  and  exclusive  custody  of  the  blessings 
of  redemption,  and  which  she  professes  to  grant  on  the  condition  of  unre- 
sisting submission  to  her  authority  and  rites,  is  exactly  the  Church 
they  desire.  We  need  not  wonder,  therefore,  at  the  long  continued 
and  extensive  prevalence  of  this  system.  It  is  too  much  in  accordance 
with  the  human  heart,  to  fail  of  its  support,  or  to  be  effectually  resisted 
by  any  power  short  of  that  by  which  the  heart  is  changed. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  question  concerning  the  nature  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  Church,  is  not  one  which  relates  to  the  externals  of  reli- 
gion. It  concerns  the  very  nature  of  Christianity  and  the  conditions 
of  salvation.  If  the  soul  convinced  of  sin  and  desirous  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  God,  is  allowed  to  hear  the  Saviour's  voice,  and  permitted  to 
go  to  him  by  faith  for  pardon  and  the  Spirit,  then  the  way  of  life  is 
unobstructed.  But  if  a  human  priest  must  intervene,  and  bar  our 
access  to  Christ,  assuming  the  exclusive  power  to  dispense  the  blessings 
Christ  has  purchased,  and  to  grant  or  withhold  them  at  discretion, 
then  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  is  effectually  changed.  No  sprink- 
ling priest,  no  sacrificial  or  sacramental  rite  can  be  substituted  for 
the  immediate  access  of  the  soul  to  Christ,  without  imminent  peril  of 
salvation. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  the  first  approach  to  God,  or  the  com- 
mencement of  a  religious  life,  that  is  perverted  by  the  ritual  system ; 
all  the  inward  and  permanent  exercises  of  religion  must  be  modified 
and  injured  by  it.  It  produces  a  different  kind  of  religion  from  that 
which  we  find  portrayed  in  the  Bible,  and  exemplified  in  the  lives  of 
the  apostles  and  early  Christians.  There  everything  is  spiritual. 
God  and  Christ  are  the  immediate  objects  of  reverence  and  love;  com- 
munion with  the  Father  of  Spirits  through  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  and 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  life  which  is  there  exhibited.  In  the  Rit- 
ual system,  rites,  ceremonies,  altars,  buildings,  priests,  saints,  the 
blessed  virgin,  intervene  and  divide  or  absorb  the  reverence  and  ho- 
mage due  to  God  alone.  If  external  rites  and  creature  agents  are 
made  necessary  to  our  access  to  God,  then  those  rites  and  agents  will 
more  or  less  take  the  place  of  God,  and  men  will  come  to  worship  the 
creature  rather  than  the  creator.  This  tendency  constantly  gathers 
strength,  until  actual  idolatry  is  the  consequence,  or  until  all  religion 
is  made  to  consist  in  the  performance  of  external  services.  Hence 
this  system  is  not  only  destructive  of  true  religion,  but  leads  to  secu- 
rity in  the  indulgence  of  sin  and  commission  of  crimes.  Though  it 
includes  among  its  advocates  many  devout  and  exemplary  men,  its 


54  CHURCH  POLITY. 

legitimate  fruits  are  recklessness  and  profligacy,  combined  with  super- 
stition and  bigotry.  It  is  impossible,  also,  under  this  system,  to  avoid 
transferring  the  subjection  of  the  understanding  and  conscience  due  to 
God  and  his  word,  to  the  Church  and  the  priesthood.  The  judgments 
of  the  Church,  considered  as  an  external  visible  society,  are  pro- 
nounced even  by  the  Protestant  advocates  of  this  theory,  to  be  unerr- 
ing and  irrefragable,  to  which  every  believer  must  bow  on  pain  of  per- 
dition. See  Palmer,  Vol.  II.  p.  46.  The  bishops  are  declared  to  stand 
in  Christ's  place ;  to  be  clothed  with  all  the  authority  which  he  as  man 
possessed ;  to  be  invested  with  the  power  to  communicate  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  forgive  sins,  to  make  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  to 
offer  sacrifices  available  for  the  living  and  the  dead.  Such  a  system 
must  exalt  the  priesthood  into  the  place  of  God. 

A  theory,  however,  which  has  so  long  prevailed  need  not  be  judged 
by  its  apparent  tendencies.  Let  it  be  judged  by  its  fruits.  It  has 
always  and  everywhere,  just  in  proportion  to  its  prevalence,  produced 
the  effects  above  referred  to.  It  has  changed  the  plan  of  salvation ;  it 
has  rendered  obsolete  the  answer  given  by  Paul  to  the  question.  What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  It  has  perverted  religion.  It  has  introduced 
idolatry.  It  has  rendered  men  secure  in  the  habitual  commission  of 
crime.  It  has  subjected  the  faith,  the  conscience,  and  the  conduct  of 
the  people  to  the  dictation  of  the  priesthood.  It  has  exalted  the  hie- 
rarchy, saints,  angels,  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  into  the  place  of  God,  so  as 
to  give  a  polytheistic  character  to  the  religion  of  a  large  part  of 
Christendom.  Such  are  the  actual  fruits  of  that  system  which  has  of 
late  renewed  its  strength,  and  which  everywhere  asserts  its  claims  to  be 
received  as  genuine  Christianity. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  dwell  on  that  theory  of  the  Church  which 
is  connected  with  Rationalism.  Its  characteristic  feature  is,  that  the 
Church  is  not  a  divine  institution,  with  prerogatives  and  attributes 
authoritatively  determined  by  its  author,  but  rather  a  form  of  Christian 
society,  to  be  controlled  according  to  the  wisdom  of  its  members.  It 
may  be  identified  with  the  state,  or  made  dependent  on  it ;  or  erected 
into  a  co-ordinate  body  with  its  peculiar  officers  and  ends.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  a  system  which  sets  aside,  more  or  less  completely,  the  au- 
thority both  of  Scripture  and  tradition,  must  leave  its  advocates  at 
liberty  to  make  of  the  Church  just  what  "  the  exigency  of  the  times  " 
in  their  judgment  requires.  The  philosophical  or  mystic  school  of 
Rationalists,  have  of  course  a  mystical  doctrine  of  the  Church,  which 
can  be  understood  only  by  those  who  understand  the  philosoj^hy  on 
which  it  rests.  With  these  views  we  have  in  this  country  little  con- 
cern, nor  do  we  believe  they  are  destined  to  excite  any  general  interest, 
or  to  exert  any  permanent  influence.     The  two  theories  of  the  Church 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  55 

■which  are  now  in  obvious  conflict,  are  the  Evangelical  and  Ritual. 
The  controversy  between  Protestants  and  Romanists,  has,  in  appear- 
ance, shifted  its  ground  from  matters  of  doctrine  to  the  question  con- 
cerning the  Church.  This  is,  however,  only  a  change  in  form.  The 
essential  question  remains  the  same.  It  is  still  a  contention  about  the 
very  nature  of  religion,  and  the  method  of  salvation. 


CHAPTER  III. 

VISIBILITY    OF   THE   CHURCH.  [*] 

Our  view  of  the  attributes  of  the  Church  is  of  necessity  determined 
by  our  view  of  its  nature.  There  is  no  dispute  between  Romanists  and 
Protestants,  as  to  whether  the  Church  is  visible,  perpetual,  one,  holy, 
catholic,  and  apostolical.  This  is  universally  conceded.  The  only 
question  is  as  to  the  sense  in  which  these  attributes  can  be  predicated 
of  it.  If  the  Church  is,  in  its  essential  nature  and  external  or- 
ganization, analogous  to  an  earthly  kingdom,  then  its  visibility,  per- 
petuity, and  all  its  other  attributes,  must  be  such  as  can  pertain  to 
such  an  organization.  When  we  affirm  that  an  earthly  kingdom  is 
visible  and  perpetual,  we  mean  that  its  organization  as  a  kingdom  is 
conspicuous,  notorious,  seen  of  all  men,  and  unchanging.  The  king- 
doms of  Babylon,  Egypt,  and  of  Rome,  have  passed  away.  They  are 
no  longer  visible  or  extant.  The  Papacy  has  a  visible  existence  of  the 
same  kind,  and  Romanists  affirm  it  is  to  continue  •while  the  world 
lasts.  The  kingdom  of  England  is  the  body  of  men  professing  alle- 
giance to  its  laws,  and  subject  to  its  sovereign.  The  Church,  according 
to  Romanists,  is  the  body  of  men  professing  the  true  religion,  and  sub- 
ject to  the  Pope.  Bellarmin,  therefore,  says :  "  Ecclesia  est  coitus  ho- 
minum,  ita  visihilis  et  palpahilis,  ut  est  ccetus  Populi  Romani,  vel  regniim 
Galli(£  aut  respublica  Venetorum."  f  As  these  bodies  are  equally  ex- 
ternal organizations,  the  visibility  of  the  one  is  analogous  to  that  of 
the  other. 

But  if  the  Church  is  the  ccetus  sanctorum,  the  company  of  believers ; 
if  it  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  if  his  body  consists  of  those,  and  of 
those  only,  in  Avhom  he  dwells  by  his  Spirit,  then  the  Church  is  visible 
only,  in  the  sense  in  which  believers  are  visible.     England  stands  out 

[  ^Article,  same  title,  Princeton  Review,  1853,  p.  670.] 
f  Disputationes ;  de  Ecclesia  Militante.     Lib.  iii.  c.  2. 


56  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

before  the  world  as  an  eartlily  kingdom ;  the  members  of  Christ's  body- 
in  England  are  no  less  conspicuous.  That  believsrs  ai'e  there,  that  the 
Church  is  there,  is  a  fact  which  can  no  more  be  rationally  disputed, 
than  the  existence  of  the  monarchy.  But  it  does  not  follow  that 
because  equally  visible,  they  are  equally  external  organizations,  and 
that  to  deny  that  the  Church,  in  its  idea,  is  an  external  society,  is'  to 
deny  that  it  is  visible.  Protestants  teach  that  the  true  Church,  as  ex- 
isting on  earth,  is  always  visible: 

f  1.  As  it  consists  of  men  and  women,  in  distinction  from  disembodied 
spirits  or  angels.  Its  members  are  not  impalpable  and  unseen,  as  those 
ministering  spirits  who,  uarevealed  to  our  senses,  continually  minister 
to  the  heirs  of  salvation.  "Surely,"  exclaims  Bellarmin,  "the  Church 
does  not  consist  of  ghosts!"  Certainly  not:  and  the  suggestion  of 
such  an  objection  betrays  an  entire  misconception  of  the  doctrine  he 
was  opposing.  Protestants  admit  that  the  Church  on  earth  consists  of 
visible  men  and  women,  and  not  of  invisible  spirits. 

2.  The  Church  is  visible,  because  its  members  manifest  their  faith 
by  their  works.  The  fact  that  they  are  the  members  of  Christ's  body  be- 
comes notorious.  Goodness  is  an  inward  quality,  and  yet  it  is  outwardly 
manifested,  so  that  the  good  are  known  and  recognized  as  such;  not 
with  absolute  certainty  in  all  cases,  but  with  sufficient  clearness  to 
determine  all  questions  of  duty  respecting  them.  So,  though  faith  is 
an  inward  principle,  it  so  reveals  itself  in  the  confession  of  the  truth, 
and  in  a  holy  life,  that  believers  may  be  known  as  a  tree  is  known  by 
its  fruit.  In  the  general  prevalence  of  Arianism,  the  true  Church 
neither  perished  nor  ceased  to  be  visible.  It  continued  to  exist,  and  its 
existence  was  manifested  in  the  confessors  and  martyrs  of  that  age. 
"When,"  says  Dr.  Jackson,  "the  doctrine  of  antichrist  was  come  to  its 
full  growth  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  although  the  whole  body  of 
Germany,  besides  Chemnitz  and  others,  and  although  the  whole  visible 
Church  of  France,  besides  Calvin  and  some  such,  had  subscribed  unto 
that  Council,  yet  the  true  Church  had  been  visible  in  those  Avorthies."* 
Wherever  there  are  true  believers,  there  is  the  true  Church;  and 
wherever  such  believers  confess  their  faith,  and  illustrate  it  by  a  holy 
life,  there  the  Church  is  visible. 

3.  The  Church  is  visible,  because  believers  are,  by  their  "  effectual 
calling,"  separated  from  the  world.  Though  in  it,  they  are  not  of  it. 
They  have  different  objects,  are  animated  by  a  different  spirit,  and  are 
distinguished  by  a  different  life.  They  are  visible,  as  a  pure  river  is 
often  seen  flowing  unmingled  through  the  turbid  waters  of  a  broader 
stream.     When  the  Holy  Spirit  enters  into  the  heart,  renewing  it  after 

*  Treatise  on  the  Church,  p.  19,  Philadelphia  edition. 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHUKCH.  57 

the  image  of  God,  uniting  the  soul  to  Christ  as  a  living  member  of  his 
body,  the  man  becomes  a  new  creature.  All  men  take  knowledge  of 
him.  They  see  that  he  is  a  Christian.  He  renounces  the  ways  of  the 
world,  separates  himself  from  all  false  religions,  becomes  an  open  wor- 
shipper of  Christ,  a  visible  member  of  the  Church,  which  is  Christ's 
body.  "When  the  early  Christians  heard  the  words  of  eternal  life,  and 
received  the  gospel  in  faith,  they  at  once  renounced  idolatry,  withdrew 
from  all  corrupt  associations,  and  manifested  themselves  as  a  new 
people,  the  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  They  were  visible  members 
of  his  body.  Even  though  there  was  but  one  such  man  in  a  city,  still 
the  fact  that  he  was  a  Christian  became  notorious ;  and  if  a  visible 
Christian,  a  visible  member  of  the  Church.  The  true  Church  is  thus 
visible  throughout  the  world,  not  as  an  organization,  not  as  an  external 
society,  but  as  the  living  body  of  Christ ;  as  a  set  of  men  distinguished 
from  others  as  true  Christians.  They  are  the  epistles  of  Jesus  Christ, 
known  and  read  of  all  men.  This  is  a  visibility  which  is  real,  and 
may  be,  and  often  has  been,  and  will  hereafter  be,  glorious.  The 
Church,  in  this  sense,  is  a  city  set  on  a  hill.  She  is  the  light  "of  the 
world.  She  is  conspicuous  in  the  beauty  of  holiness.  This  is  not, 
indeed,  the  visibility  of  a  hierarchy,  gorgeous  in  apparel,  pompous  in 
ritual  services — a  kingdom  which  is  of  this  world.  But  it  is  not  the 
less  real,  and  infinitely  more  glorious.  How  unfounded,  then,  is  the 
objection  that  the  Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  is  a  chimera,  a  Platonic 
idea,  unless  it  is,  in  its  essential  nature,  a  visible  society,  like  the  king- 
dom of  England  or  Republic  of  Switzerland  !  Apart  from  any  outward 
organization,  and  in  the  midst  of  all  organizations,  the  true  Church  is 
now  visible,  and  she  has  left  a  track  of  glory  through  all  history,  since 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  so  that  it  can  be  traced  and  verified,  in  all  ages 
and  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

4.  The  true  Church  is  visible  in  the  external  Church,  just  as  the 
soul  is  visible  in  the  body.  That  is,  as  by  the  means  of  the  body  we 
know  that  the  soul  is  there,  so  by  means  of  the  external  Church,  we 
know  where  the  true  Church  is.  There  are,  doubtless,  among  Moham- 
medans, many  insincere  and  skeptical  professors  of  the  religion  of  the 
false  prophet.  No  one  can  tell  who  they  are,  or  how  many  there  may 
be.  But  the  institutions  of  Mohammedanism,  its  laws,  its  usages,  its 
mosques,  its  worship,  make  it  as  apparent  as  the  light  of  day,  that  sin- 
cere believers  in  Mahomet  exist,  and  are  the  life  of  the  external  com- 
munities consisting  of  sincere  and  insincere  followers  of  the  prophet. 
So  the  external  Church,  as  embracing  all  who  profess  the  true  religion 
— with  their  various  organizations,  their  confessions  of  the  truth,  their 
temples,  and  their  Christian  worship — make  it  apparent  that  the  true 
Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  exists,  and  where  it  is.     These  arc  not  the 


68  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Church,  any  more  than  the  body  is  the  soul ;  but  they  are  its  manifes- 
tations, and  its  residence.  This  becomes  intelligible  by  adverting  to 
the  origin  of  the  Christian  community.  The  admitted  facts  in  refer- 
ence to  this  subject  are — 1.  That  our  Lord  appeared  on  earth  as  the 
Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  To  all  who  received  him  he 
gave  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God ;  they  were  justified  and  made 
partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  thereby  united  to  Christ  as  living 
members  of  his  body.  They  were  thus  distinguished  inwardly  and 
outwardly  from  all  other  men.  2.  He  commissioned  his  disciples  to  go 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
enjoined  upon  them  to  require  as  the  conditions  of  any  man's  being 
admitted  into  their  communion  as  a  member  of  his  body,  repentance 
toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

He  commanded  all  who  did  thus  repent  and  believe,  to  unite  to- 
gether for  his  worship,  for  instruction,  for  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  for  mutual  watch  and  care.  For  this  purpose  he  pro- 
vided for  the  appointment  of  certain  officers,  and  gave,  through  his 
apostles,  a  body  of  laws  for  their  government,  and  for  the  regulation 
of  all  things  which  those  who  believed  were  required  to  perform. 
Provision  was  thus  made,  by  divine  authority,  for  the  Church  assum- 
ing the  form  of  an  external  visible  society. 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  all  those  who,  in  every  age,  and  in  every 
part  of  the  world,  professed  the  true  religion,  and  thereby  united  them- 
selves to  this  society,  were  true  believers,  then  there  would  be  no  room 
for  the  distinction,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned,  between  the 
Church  as  visible  and  invisible.  Then  this  external  society  would  be 
Christ's  body  on  earth.  All  that  is  predicated  of  the  latter  could  be 
predicated  of  the  former ;  all  that  is  promised  to  the  one  would  be 
promised  to  the  other.  Then  this  society  would  answer  to  the  defini- 
tion of  the  Church,  as  a  company  of  believers.  Then  all  within  it 
would  be  saved,  and  all  out  of  it  would  be  lost.  The  above  hypothesis, 
however,  is  undeniably  false,  and  therefore  the  conclusions  drawn  from 
it  must  also  be  false.  We  know  that  even  in  the  apostolic  age,  many 
who  professed  faith  in  Christ,  and  ranked  themselves  with  his  people, 
were  not  true  believers.  We  know  that  in  every  subsequent  age,  the 
great  majority  of  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  who  call  themselves  Christians,  and  who  are  included  in  tlie  exter- 
nal organization  of  his  followers,  are  not  true  Christians.  This  exter- 
nal society,  therefore,  is  not  a  company  of  believers;  it  is  not  the 
Church  which  is  Christ's  body;  the  attributes  and  promises  of  the 
Church  do  not  belong  to  it.  It  is  not  that  living  temple  built  on  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  as  an  habitation  of  God, 
through  the  Spii'it.     It  is  not  the  bride  of  Christ,  for  which  he  died, 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHUECII. 


59 


and  wliich  he  cleanses  vvitli  tlie  "svashing  of  regeneration.  It  is  not  the 
flock  of  the  good  Shepherd,  coiniwsed  of  the  sheep  who  hear  his  voice, 
and  to  whom  it  is  his  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  the  kingdom.  In 
short,  the  external  society  is  not  the  Church.  The  two  are  not  identi- 
cal, commensurate,  and  conterminous,  so  that  he  who  is  a  member  of 
the  one  is  a  member  of  the  other,  and  he  who  is  excommunicated  from 
the  one  is  cut  off  from  the  other.  Yet  the  Church  is  in  that  society, 
or  the  aggregate  body  of  professing  Christians,  as  the  soul  is  in  the 
body,  or  as  sincere  believers  are  comprehended  in  the  mass  of  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  religion  of  Christ, 

If,  then,  the  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ ;  if  a  man  becomes  a  mem- 
ber of  that  body  by  faith  ;  if  multitudes  of  those  who  profess  in  baptism 
the  true  religion,  are  not  believers,  then  it  is  just  as  certain  that  the 
external  body  consisting  of  the  baptized  is  not  the  Chiirch,  as  that  a 
man's  calling  himself  a  Christian  does  not  make  him  a  Christian.  Yet 
there  would  be  no  nominal  Christians,  if  there  were  no  sincere  disciples 
of  Christ.  The  name  and  form  of  his  religion  would  long  since  have 
perished  from  the  world.  The  existeqce  of  the  external  Church,  its 
continuance,  its  influence  for  good,  its  spiritual  power,  its  extension,  its 
visible  organizations,  are  all  due  to  the  living  element  which  it  embraces, 
and  which  in  these  various  ways  manifests  its  presence.  It  is  thus 
that  the  true  Church  is  visible  in  the  outward,  though  the  one  is  no 
more  the  other  than  the  body  is  the  soul. 

That  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  visibility  of  the  Church,  above 
stated,  is  true,  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  from  what  has  already  been 
established  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church.  Everything  depends  upon 
the  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  the  Church  ?  If  it  is  an  external 
society  of  professors  of  the  true  religion,  then  it  is  visible  as  an  earthly 
kingdom ;  if  that  society  is  destroyed,  the  Church  is  destroyed,  and 
everything  that  is  true  of  the  Church  is  true  of  that  society.  Then,  in 
short,  Romanism  must  be  admitted  as  a  logical  necessity.  But  if  the 
Church  is  a  company  of  believers,  then  its  visibility  is  that  which  be- 
longs to  believers;  and  nothing  is  true  of  the  Church  which  is  not  true 
of  believers. 

2.  The  Protestant  distinction  between  the  Church  visible  and  invisible, 
nominal  and  real,  is  that  which  Paul  makes  between  "  Israel  after  the 
flesh,"  and  "  Israel  after  the  Spirit."  God  had  promised  to  Israel  that 
he  would  be  their  God,  and  that  they  should  be  his  people ;  that  he 
would  never  forsake  or  cast  them  off;  that  he  would  send  his  Son  for 
their  redemption  ;  dwell  in  them  by  hLs  Spirit ;  write  his  laws  in  their 
hearts  ;  guide  them  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  that  he  would  give 
them  the  possession  of  the  world,  and  the  inheritance  of  heaven ;  that 
all  who  joined  them  should  be  saved,  and  all  who  forsook  them  should 


GO  CHURCH  POLITY. 

perish.  The  Jews  claimed  all  these  promises  for  the  external  organiza- 
tion, i.  e.  for  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  united  to  him  and 
to  each  other  by  the  outward  profession  of  the  covenant,  and  by  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  They  held,  that  external  conformity  to  Judaism 
made  a  man  a  Jew,  a  member  of  that  body  to  which  all  these  promises 
and  prerogatives  belonged ;  and,  consequently,  that  the  apostasy  or  -re- 
jection of  that  external  body  would  involve  the  destruction  of  the 
Church,  and  a  failure  of  the  promise  of  God.  In  like  manner  Eitualists 
teach  that  what  is  said  and  promised  to  the  Church  belongs  to  the 
external  visible  society  of  professing  Christians,  and  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  that  society  would  be  the  destruction  of  the  Church. 

In  opposition  to  all  this,  Paul  taught,  1.  That  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is 
one  outv/ardly.  2.  Circumcision,  which  was  outward,  in  the  flesh,  did 
not  secure  an  interest  in  the  divine  promises.  8.  That  he  only  was  a 
Jew,  i.  e.  one  of  the  true  people  of  God,  who  was  such  in  virtue  of 
the  state  of  his  heart.  4.  That  the  body  to  which  the  divine  promises 
were  made,  was  not  the  outward  organization,  but  the  inward,  invisible 
body ;  not  the  Israel  -/.ara  aapxa  but  the  Israel  y.aza  7:vsu,'j.a.  This  is  the 
Protestant  doctrine  of  the  Church,  which  teaches  that  he  is  not  a 
Christian  who  is  such  by  mere  profession,  and  that  it  is  not  water 
baptism  which  makes  a  man  a  member  of  that  body  to  which  the 
promises  are  made,  and  consequently  that  the  visibility  of  the  Church 
is  not  that  which  belongs  to  an  external  society,  but  to  true  believers, 
or  the  communion  of  saints. 

The  perversion  and  abuse  of  terms,  and  the  false  reasoning  to  which 
Romanists  resort,  when  speaking  of  this  subject,  are  so  palpable,  that 
they  could  not  be  tolerated  in  any  ordinary  discussion.  The  word 
Christian  is  just  as  ambiguous  as  the  word  Church.  If  called  upon  to 
define  a  Christian,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  say — He  is  a  man  who 
believes  the  doctrines  and  obeys  the  commands  of  Christ.  The  inevi- 
table inference  from  this  definition  is,  that  the  attributes,  tlie  promises, 
and  prerogatives  pertaining  to  Christians,  belong  to  those  only  who  be- 
lieve and  obey  the  Lord  Jesus.  Instead,  however,  of  admitting  this  un- 
avoidable "conclusion,  which  would  overthrow  their  whole  system,  they 
insist  that  all  these  attributes,  promises,  and  prerogatives,  belong  to  the 
body  of  professing  Christians,  and  that  it  is  baptism  and  subjection  to 
a  prelate  or  the  pope,  and  not  faith  and  obedience  towards  Christ, 
which  constitute  membership  in  the  true  Church. 

3.  The  same  doctrine  taught  by  the  apostle  Paul,  is  no  less  plainly 
taught  by  the  apostle  John.  In  his  day  many  Avho  had  been  baptized, 
and  received  into  the  communion  of  the  external  society  of  Christians, 
were  not  true  believers.  How  were  they  regarded  by  the  apostle? 
Did  their  external  profession  make  them  members  of  the  true  Church, 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHUECH.  61 

to  which  the  promises  pertain?  St.  John  answers  this  question  by- 
saying,  "  They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us ;  for  if  they 
had  been  of  us,  they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us :  but  they 
went  out,  that  it  might  be  made  manifest  that  they  were  not  all  of  us. 
But  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  thinfys." 
1  John  ii.  19,  20.  It  is  here  taught,  1.  That  many  are  included  in  the 
pale  of  the  external  Church,  who  are  not  members  of  the  true  Church. 
2.  That  those  only  who  have  an  unction  of  the  Holy  One,  leading 
them  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  constitute  the  Church.  8.  And 
consequently  the  visibility  of  the  Church  is  that  which  belongs  to  the 
body  of  true  believers. 

4.  The  Church  must  retain  its  essential  attributes  in  every  stage  and 
state  of  its  existence,  in  prosperity  and  in  adversity.  It  is,  however 
undeniable,  that  the  Church  has  existed  in  a  state  of  dispersion. 
There  have  been  periods  when  the  whole  external  organization  lapsed 
into  idolatry  or  heresy.  This  was  the  case  when  there  were  but  seven 
thousand  in  all  Israel  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  when  at 
the  time  of  the  advent  the  whole  Jewish  Church,  as  an  organized 
body,  rejected  Christ,  and  the  New  Testament  Church  was  not  yet 
founded ;  and  to  a  great  extent,  also,  during  the  ascendency  of  Arian- 
ism.  We  must  either  admit  that  the  Church  perished  during  these 
periods,  or  that  it  w^as  continued  in  the  scattered,  unorganized  be- 
lievers. If  the  latter,  its  visibility  is  not  that  of  an  external  society, 
but  such  as  belongs  to  the  true  body  of  Christ,  whose  members  are 
known  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  manifested  in  their  lives.  ( 

5.  The  great  argument  however,  on  this  subject,  is  the  utter  incon- 
gruity betAveen  what  the  Bible  teaches  concerning  the  Church,  and  the 
Komish  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  visible  as  an  external  organization. 
If  that  is  so,  then  such  organization  is  the  Church ;  then,  as  the 
Church  is  holy,  the  body  and  bride  of  Christ,  the  temple  and  family 
of  God,  all  the  members  of  the  organization  are  holy,  members  of  T 
Christ's  body,  and  partakers  of  his  life.  Then,  too,  as  Christ  has 
promised  to  guide  his  Church  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  that  ex- 
ternal organization  can  never  err  as  to  any  essential  doctrine.  Then, 
also,  as  we  are  commanded  to  obey  the  Church,  if  we  refuse  submission 
to  this  external  body,  we  are  to  be  regarded  as  heathen  men  and 
publicans.  Then,  moreover,  as  Christ  saves  all  the  members  of  his 
body,  and  none  other,  he  saves  all  included  in  this  external  organiza- 
tion, and  consigns  to  eternal  death  all  out  of  it.  And  then,  finally, 
ministers  admit  to  heaven  all  whom  they  receive  into  this  society,  and 
cast  into  hell  all  whom  they  reject  from  it.  These  are  not  only  the  logi- 
cal, but  the  avowed  and  admitted  conclusions  of  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion.    It  becomes  those  who  call  themselves  Protestants,  to  look  these 


62  CHUECH  POLITY. 

consequences  in  the  face,  before  they  join  the  Papists  and  PuSeyites  in 
ridiculing  tlie  idea  of  a  Church  composed  exclusively  of  believers,  and 
insist  that  the  body  to  which  the  attributes  and  promises  of  the  Church 
belong,  is  the  visible  organization  of  professing  Christians.  Such  Protest- 
ants may  live  to  see  men  walking  about  with  the  keys  of  heaven  at  their 
girdle,  armed  with  a  power  before  which  the  bravest  may  well  tremble. 

»"\  The  scriptural  and.  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  visibility  of  the  Church 
'  is,  therefore,  a  corollary  of  the  true  doctrine  of  its  nature.  If  the 
Church  is  a  company  of  believers,  its  visibility  is  that  which  belongs  to 
bclievei's.  They  are  visible  as  men ;  as  holy  men ;  as  men  separated 
from  the  world,  as  a  peculiar  people,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of 
God ;  as  the  soul  and  sustaining  element  of  all  those  external  organiza- 
tions, consisting  of  professors  of  the  true  religion,  united  for  the  wor- 
ship of  Christ,  the  maintenance  of  the  truth,  and  mutual  watch  and  care. 
The  objections  which  Bellarmin,  Bossuct,  Palmer,  and  writers  gene- 
rally of  the  Romish  and  Ritual  class,  urge  against  this  doctrine,  are 
either  founded  on  misconception,  or  resolve  themselves  into  objections 
against  the  scriptural  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  "the  com- 
pany of  believers."  Thus,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  objected  that  in  the 
Scriptures  and  in  all  ecclesiastical  history,  the  Church  is  spoken  of 
i  and  addressed  as  a  visible  society  of  professing  Christians.  The 
churches  of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Corinth,  and  Rome,  were  all  such 
societies;  and  the  whole  body  of  such  professors  constituted  the 
Church.  History  traces  the  origin,  the  extension,  the  trials,  and  the 
triumphs  of  that  outward  community.  It  is  vain,  therefore,  to  deny 
that  body  to  be  the  Church,  which  the  Bible  and  all  Christendom 
unite  in  so  designating.  But  was  not  the  ancient  Hebrew  common- 
wealth called  Israel,  Jerusalem,  Zion  ?  Is  not  its  history,  as  a  visible 
society,  recorded   from  Abraham  to  the   destruction    of  Jerusalem? 

;  And  yet  does  not  Paul  say  expressly,  that  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one 
outwardly ;    that  the  external  Israel  is  not  the  true  Israel  ?     In  this 

>     objection  the  real  point  at  issue  is  overlooked.     The  question  is  not, 

!  whether  a  man  who  professes  to  be  a  Chi-istian,  may  properly  be  so 
addressed  and  so  treated,  but  whether  profession  makes  a  man  a  true 
Christian.  The  question  is  not,  whether  a  society  of  professing  Chris- 
tians may  properly  be  called  a  Church,  and  be  so  regarded,  but 
whether  their  being  such  a  society  constitutes  them  a  competent  part 
of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  whole  question  is.  What  is  the  subject  of 
the  attributes  and  prerogatives  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  the  exter- 
nal body  of  professors,  or  the  company  of  believers  ?  If  calling  a  man  a 
Christian  does  not  imply  that  he  has  the  character  and  the  inheritance 
of  the  disciples  of  Christ;  if  calling  the  Jewish  commonwealth  Israel 
did  not  imply  that  they  were  the  true  Israel,  then  calling  the  pro- 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  63 

fessors  of  the  true  religion  the  Churcli,  does  not  imply  that  tliey  are 
the  body  of  Christ.  When  the  designation  given  to  any  man  or  body 
of  men,  involves  nothing  more  than  what  is  external  or  official,  its 
application  implies  they  are  what  they  are  called.  To  call  a  man  an 
Englishman,  is  to  recognize  him  as  such.  To  address  any  one  as 
emperor,  king,  or  president,  is  to  admit  his  claim  to  such  title.  But 
when  the  designation  is  expressive  of  some  inward  quality,  and  a  state 
of  mind,  its  application  does  not  imply  its  actual  possession,  but 
simply  that  it  is  claimed.  To  call  men  saints,  believers,  the  children 
of  God,  or  a  Church,  supposes  them  to  be  true  believers,  or  the  true 
Church,  only  on  the  assumption  that  "  no  internal  virtue  "  is  necessary 
to  union  with  the  Church,  or  to  make  a  man  a  believer  and  a  child  of 
God. 

Scriptural  and  common  usage,  therefore,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  Protestant  doctrine.  That  doctrine  admits  the  propriety  of  calling 
any  man  a  Christian  who  professes  to  be  a  worshipper  of  Christ,  and 
of  designating  any  company  of  such  men  a  church.  It  only  denies 
that  he  is  a  real  Christian  who  is  one  only  in  name ;  or  that  that  is  a 
true  Church,  which  is  such  only  in  profession.  An  external  society, 
therefore,  may  properly  be  called  a  Church,  without  implying  that  the 
visibility  of  the  true  Church  consists  in  outward  organization. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  the  possession  of  officers,  of  laws,  of  terms  of 
communion,  necessarily  supposes  the  Church  to  have  the  visibility  of 
an  external  society.  How  can  a  man  be  received  into  the  Church,  or 
excommunicated  from  it,  if  the  Church  is  not  an  outward  organiza- 
tion ?  Did  the  fact  that  the  Hebrews  had  officers  and  laws,  a  temple, 
a  ritual,  terms  of  admission  and  exclusion,  make  the  external  Israel  the 
true  Israel,  or  prove  that  the  visibility  of  the  latter  was  that  of  a  state  or 
commonwealth  ?  Protestants  admit  that  true  believers  form  themselves 
into  a  visible  society,  with  officers,  laws,  and  terms  of  communion — but 
they  deny  that  such  society  is  the  true  Church,  any  further  than  it  con- 
sists of  true  believers.  Everything  comes  back  to  the  question.  What  is 
the  Church?  True  believers  constitute  the  true  Church;  professed 
believers  constitute  the  outward  Church.  These  two  things  are  not  to 
be  confounded.  The  external  body  is  not,  as  such,  the  body  of  Christ. 
Neither  are  they  to  be  separated  as  two  Churches ;  the  one  true  and  the 
other  false,  the  one  real  and  the  other  nominal.  They  differ  as  the  sin- 
cere and  insincere  differ  in  any  community,  or  as  the  Israel  y.a-a  ■KVzup.a 
differ  from  the  Israel  xara  aapxa.  A  man  could  be  admitted  to  the 
outward  Israel  without  being  received  into  the  number  of  God's  true 
people,  and  he  could  be  excluded  from  the  former  without  being  cut 
off  from  the  latter.  The  true  Israel  was  not  the  commonwealth,  as 
such,  and  the  outward  organization,  with  its  laws  and  officers,  though 


64  CHURCH  POLITY. 

intimately  related  witli  tlie  spiritual  body  as  the  true  Church,  did  not 
constitute  it.  The  question,  how  far  the  outward  Church  is  the  true 
Church,  is  easily  answered.  Just  so  far  as  it  is  what  it  professes  to  be, 
and  no  further.  So  far  as  it  is  a  company  of  faithful  men,  animated 
and  controlled  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  a  true  Church,  a  constituent 
member  of  the  body  of  Christ.  If  it  be  asked  further,  how  we  are  to 
know  whether  a  given  society  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  Church;  we 
answer,  precisely  as  we  know  whether  a  given  individual  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  Christian,  i.  e.  by  their  profession  and  conduct.  As  the 
Protestant  doctrine,  that  true  believers  constitute  the  body  of  Christ,  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  existence  amongst  them  and  others  out- 
wardly united  with  them,  of  officers  and  laws,  no  argument  can  be 
drawn  from  the  existence  of  such  outward  institutions  to  prove  that  the 
Church  is  essentially  an  external  organization. 

Bossuet  presents  this  objection  in  the  light  of  a  contradiction.  He 
says,  "Protestants  insist  that  the  Church  consists  exclusively  of  be- 
lievers, and  is  therefore  an  invisible  body.  But  when  asked  for  the 
signs  of  a  Church,  they  say,  the  word  and  sacraments :  thus  making  it 
an  external  society  with  ordinances,  a  ministry,  and  public  service. 
If  so,  how  can  it  consist  exclusively  of  the  pious  ?  And  where  was 
there  any  such  society,  answering  to  the  Protestant  definition,  before  the 
Eeformation  ?  "  *  This  objection  rests  upon  the  misconception  which 
Kitualists  do  not  appear  able,  to  rid  themselves  of.  "When  Protestants 
say  the  Church  is  invisible,  they  only  mean  that  an  inward  and  conse- 
quently invisible  state  of  mind  is  the  condition  of  membership,  and  not 
that  those  who  have  this  internal  qualification  are  invisible,  or  that 
they  cannot  be  so  known  as  to  enable  us  to  discharge  the  duties  which 
we  owe  them.  When  asked,  what  makes  a  man  a  Christian  ?  we  say, 
true  faith.  "When  asked  whom  must  we  regard  and  treat  as  Chris- 
tians ?  we  answer,  those  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  their  faith. 
Is  there  any  contradiction  in  this  ?  Is  there  any  force  in  the  objec- 
tion, that  if  faith  is  an  inward  quality,  it  cannot  be  proved  by  outward 
evidence  ?  Thus,  when  Protestants  are  asked,  what  is  the  true  Church  ? 
they  answer,  the  company  of  believers.  When  asked  what  associations 
are  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  churches?  they  answer,  those  in 
which  the  gospel  is  preached.  When  asked  further,  where  was  the 
Church  before  the  Reformation  ?  they  answer,  just  where  it  w^as  in  the 
days  of  Elias,  when  it  consisted  of  a  few  thousand  scattered  believers.f 

*  Bossuet's  Variations,  Book  xv.  |  20,  et  seqq. 

f  The  question  wliicli  Koraanists  so  confidently  ask,  Where  was  your  Church 
before  Luther  ?  is  well  answered  in  the  homely  retort,  Where  was  your  face  this 
morning  before  it  was  washed  ? 


VISIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  65 

3.  A  third  objection  is  very  much  of  the  same  kind  as  the  precedino-. 
If  the  Church  consists  exclusively  of  believers,  it  is  invisible.  We  are, 
however,  required  to  obey  the  Church,  to  hear  the  Church,  &c.  But 
how  can  we  hear  and  obey  an  invisible  body  ?  To  this  the  answer  is, 
the  Church  is  no  more  invisible  than  believers  are.  We  are  com- 
manded to  love  the  brethren ;  to  do  good  to  all  men,  especially  to  the 
household  of  faith.  As  faith,  however,  is  invisible,  it  may  be  asked, 
in  the  spirit  of  this  objection,  how  can  we  tell  who  are  believers? 
Christ  says,  by  their  fruits.  There  is  no  real  difficulty  in  this  matter. 
If  we  have  a  real  heart  for  it,  we  shall  be  able  to  obey  the  command 
to  love  the  brethren,  though  we  cannot  read  the  heart ;  and  if  disposed 
to  hear  the  Church,  we  shall  be  able  to  recognize  her  voice.  Because 
the  true  Church  is  always  visible,  and,  therefore,  can  be  obeyed. 
Ritualists  infer  that  the  visible  Church  is  the  true  Church,  though,  as 
Dr.  Jackson  says,  the  two  propositions  differ  as  much  as  "  to  withstand 
a  man  "  differs  from  "  standing  with  a  man." 

4.  Much  the  most  plausible  argument  of  Romanists  is  derived  from 
the  analogy  of  the  old  dispensation.  That  the  Church  is  a  visible  society, 
consisting  of  the  professors  of  the  true  religion,  as  distinguished  from 
the  body  of  true  believers,  known  only  to  God,  is  plain,  they  say, 
because  under  the  old  dispensation  it  was  such  a  society,  embracing  all 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  who  professed  the  true  religion,  and 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision.  To  this  external  society  were  given 
the  oracles  of  God,  the  covenants,  the  promises,  the  means  of  grace. 
Out  of  its  pale  there  was  no  salvation.  Union  with  it  was  the  neces- 
sary condition  of  acceptance  with  God.  This  was  a  divine  institution. 
It  was  a  visible  Church,  consisting  of  professors,  and  not  exclusively 
of  believers.  If  such  a  society  existed  then  by  divine  appointment, 
what  has  become  of  it  ?  Has  it  ceased  to  exist  ?  Has  removing  its 
restriction  to  one  people  destroyed  its  nature  ?  Does  lopping  certain 
branches  from  the  tree  destroy  the  tree  itself?  Far  from  it.  The 
Church  exists  as  an  external  society  now  as  it  did  then ;  what  once 
belonged  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  now  belongs  to  the  visible 
Church.  As  union  with  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  was  necessary  to 
salvation  then,  so  union  with  the  visible  Church  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion now.  And  as  subjection  to  the  priesthood,  and  especially  to  the 
high-priest,  was  necessary  to  union  with  Israel  then,  so  submission  to 
the  regular  ministry,  and  especially  to  the  Pope,  is  necessary  to  union 
with  the  Church  now.  Such  is  the  favourite  argument  of  Romanists  ; 
and  such,  (striking  out  illogically  the  last  clause,  which  requires  sub- 
jection to  prelates,  or  the  Pope,)  we  are  sorry  to  say  is  the  argument 
of  some  Protestants,  and  even  of  some  Presbyterians. 

The  fallacy  of  the  whole  argument  lies  in  its  false  assumption,  that 
5 


66  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  external  Israel  was  the  true  Cliurcli.  It  was  not  tlie  body  of 
Clirist ;  it  was  not  pervaded  by  his  Spirit.  Membership  in  it  did  not 
constitute  membership  in  the  body  of  Christ.  The  rejection  or  de- 
struction of  the  external  Israel  was  not  the  destruction  of  the  Church. 
The  apostasy  of  the  former  was  not  the  apostasy  of  the  latter.  The 
attributes,  promises,  and  prerogatives  of  the  one,  were  not  those  of  the 
other.  In  short,  they  were  not  the  same,  and,  therefore,  that  the  visi- 
bility of  the  one  was  that  of  an  external  organization,  is  no  proof  that 
the  visibility  of  the  Church  is  that  of  an  external  society.  All  this 
is  included,  not  only  in  the  express  declaration  of  the  Apostle,  that  the 
external  Israel  was  not  the  true  Israel,  but  is  involved  in  his  whole 
argument.  It  was,  indeed,  the  main  point  of  discussion  between  him- 
self and  the  Jews.  The  great  question  was,  is  a  man  made  a  member 
of  the  true  Israel,  and  a  partaker  of  the  promise,  by  circumcision  and 
subjection,  or  by  faith  in  Christ  ?  If  the  former,  then  the  Jews 
were  right,  and  Paul  was  wrong  as  to  the  whole  issue.  But  if  the 
latter,  then  Paul  was  right  and  the  Jews  wrong.  And  this  is  the  pre- 
cise question  between  us  and  Romanists,  and  Anglicans.  If  the  ex- 
ternal Israel  was  the  true  Israel,  then  Romanists  are  right  and  Protes- 
tants are  wrong  as  to  the  method  of  salvation.  Besides,  if  we  admit  that 
the  external  Israel  was  the  true  Church,  then  Ave  must  admit  that  the 
true  Church  apostatized  ;  for  it  is  undeniable  that  the  whole  external 
Israel,  as  an  organized  body,  did  repeatedly,  and  for  long  periods, 
lapse  into  idolatry.  Nay  more,  we  must  admit  that  the  true  Church 
rejected  and  crucified  Christ;  for  he  was  rejected  by  the  external  Israel, 
by  the  Sanhedrim,  by  the  priesthood,  by  the  elders,  and  by  the  people. 
All  this  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Scriptures,  and  would  involve  a 
breach  of  promise  on  the  part  of  God.  Paul  avoids  this  fatal  con- 
clusion by  denying  that  the  external  Church  is,  as  such,  the  true 
Church,  or  that  the  promises  made  to  the  latter  were  made  to  the 
former. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  there  were  two  covenants  made  with 
Abraham.  By  the  one,  his  natural  descendants  through  Isaac  were 
constituted  a  commonwealth,  an  external,  visible  community.  By  the 
other,  his  spiritual  descendants  were  constituted  a  Church.  The  parties 
to  the  former  covenant  were  God  and  the  nation ;  to  the  other,  God 
and  his  true  people.  The  promises  of  the  national  covenant  were  na- 
tional blessings ;  the  promises  of  the  spiritual  covenant,  (i.  e.  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,)  were  spiritual  blessings,  reconciliation,  holiness,  and 
eternal  life.  The  conditions  of  the  one  covenant  were  circumcision 
and  obedience  to  the  law  ;  the  condition  of  the  latter  was,  is,  and  ever 
has  been,  faith  in  the  Messiah  as  the  seed  of  the  woman,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Saviour  of  the  Avorld.     There  cannot  be  a  greater  mistake 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  g7 

than  to  confound  the  national  covenant  with  the  covenant  of  grace, 
and  the  commonwealth  founded  on  the  one  with  the  Church  founded 
on  the  other. 

"When  Christ  came  "the  commonwealth"  was  abolished,  and  there 
was  nothing  put  in  its  place.  The  Church  remained.  There  was  no 
external  covenant,  nor  promises  of  external  blessings,  on  condition  of 
external  rites  and  subjection.  There  was  a  spiritual  society  with 
spiritual  promises,  on  the  condition  of  faith  in  Christ.  In  no  part 
of  the  New  Testament  is  any  other  condition  of  membership  in  the 
Church  prescribed  than  that  contained  in  the  answer  of  Philip  to  the 
eunuch  who  desired  baptism  :  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God." — ^Acts  viii.  37.  The  Church,  therefore,  is,  in  its  essen- 
tial nature,  a  company  of  belieyers,  and  not  an  external  society,  re- 
quiring merely  external  profession  as  the  condition  of  membership. 
While  this  is  true  and  vitally  important,  it  is  no  less  true  that  believ- 
ers make  themselves  visible  by  the  profession  of  the  truth,  by  holiness 
of  life,  by  separation  from  the  world  as  a  peculiar  people,  and  by 
organizing  themselves  for  the  worship  of  Christ,  and  for  mutual  watch 
and  care.  The  question,  when  any  such  organization  is  to  be  regarded 
as  a  portion  of  the  true  Church,  is  one  to  which  the  Protestant  answer 
has  already  been  given  in  a  few  words,  but  its  fuller  discussion  must  be 
reserved  to  some  other  occasion. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

PERPETUITY   OF   THE   CHURCH.  [*] 

The  Church  is  perpetual.  Of  this  there  is,  among  Christians, 
neither  doubt  nor  dispute.  But  as  to  what  is  meant  both  by  the  sub- 
ject and  predicate  of  this  proposition,  there  exist  radically  different 
views.  By  the  Church,  Romanists  understand  the  external  visible 
society  united  in  the  profession  of  the  same  faith,  by  communion  in  the 
sacraments,  and  subjection  to  bishops  having  succession,  especially  to 
the  Roman  Pontiff.  The  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  therefore,  must  on 
their  theory  include  the  continued  existence  of  an  organized  society, 
professing  the  true  faith ;  the  continued  legitimate  administration  of 
the  sacraments;  and  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  prelates  and 
popes. 

[*  Article  entitled  "  The  Church— lis  Perpetuity,"  Princeton  Review,  1856,  p.  689.] 


^ 


68  CHUECH  POLITY. 

Anglicans  *  understand  by  the  Cliurch  an  external  society  professing 
the  true  faith,  united  in  the  communion  of  the  same  sacraments,  and 
in  subjection  to  bishops  canonically  ordained.  Perpetuity  with  them, 
therefore,  must  include  perpetual  adherence  to  the  truth,  the  due 
administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  uninterrupted  succession  of 
bishops. 

Protestants  hold  that  the  true  Church  is  the  body  of  true  believers ; 
and  that  the  empirical  or  visible  Church  is  the  body  of  those  who 
profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children.  All  therefore 
that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  according  to  the  Protestant  theory, 
involves,  is  the  continued  existence  on  earth  of  sincere  believers  who 
profess  the  true  religion. 

It  is  obvious  that  everything  depends  on  the  definition  of  the  Church. 
If  you  determine  the  nature  of  the  subject,  you  determine  the  nature 
of  its  attributes.  If  the  Romish  or  Anglican  definition  of  the  Church 
be  correct,  then  their  view  of  all  its  attributes,  its  visibility,  perpetuity, 
holiness,  and  unity,  must  also  be  correct.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if 
the  Protestant  definition  of  the  Church  be  accepted,  so  must  also  the 
Protestant  view  of  its  attributes.  It  is  also  obvious  that  the  considera- 
tion of  any  one  of  these  points  involves  all  the  others.  The  perpetuity  of 
the  Church,  for  example,  brings  up  the  question,  whether  external 
organization  is  necessary  to  its  existence ;  whether  the  Church  may 
depart  from  the  faith ;  whether  the  prelatical  ofllice  is  necessary,  and 
whether  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  ordination  is  essential  to  the 
ministry ;  how  far  the  sacraments  are  necessary  to  the  being  of  the 
Church ;  whether  Peter  was  the  head  of  the  College  of  the  Ajjostles  ; 
whether  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  his  successor  in  that  office ;  and  whether 
submission  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  essential  to  the  unity,  and,  of 
course,  to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  All  these  points  are  involved 
in  the  Romish  theory  on  this  subject ;  and  all,  except  the  last  two,  in 
the  Anglican  doctrine.  It  would  be  impossible  to  go  over  all  this 
ground  in  less  compass  than  that  of  a  volume.  On  each  of  these 
topics,  ponderous  tonies  have  been  written.  We  propose  simjily  to 
present,  in  a  series  of  propositions,  a  brief  outline  of  the  Protestant 
answer  to  the  question.  In  what  sense  is  the  Church  perpetual  ? 

The  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  promises  of  the  New, 
it  is  universally  conceded,  secure  the  existence  of  the  Church  on  earth 
until  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  Our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples, 
"  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  He  pro- 
mised that  the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail  against  his  Church. 

*  By  Anglicans  is  meant  the  Laudean,  or  Oxford  party,  in  the  Church  of 
England. 


PEEPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  69 

As  to  the  fact,  therefore,  that  the  Church  is  to  exist  on  earth  as  long 
as  the  world  lasts,  there  is  and  can  be  no  dispute  among  Christians. 
The  only  question  is,  How  are  these  promises  to  be  understood  ? 

The  first  proposition  which  Protestants  maintain  in  answer  to  the 
above  question,  is,  that  the  promise  of  Christ  does  not  secure  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  any  particular  Church  as  an  organized  body.  By 
a  particular  Church  is  meant  a  body  of  professing  Christians,  united 
by  some  ecclesiastical  organization,  as  the  Church  of  Antioch,  of  Jeru- 
salem, of  England,  or  of  Holland.  The  proposition  is,  that,  from  all 
that  appears  ia  Scripture,  any  such  Church  may  apostatize  from  the 
truth,  or  cease  to  exist  even  nominally.  This  proposition  is  almost 
universally  conceded.  Many  of  the  apostolic  Churches  have  long  since 
perished.  The  Churches  of  Antioch,  of  Ephesus,  of  Corinth,  of  Thes- 
salonica,  have  been  blotted  out  of  existence.  Romanists  teach  that  the 
Eastern  Churches,  and  those  of  England,  Scotland,  Holland,  &c., 
have  so  far  depai-ted  from  the  faith  and  order  of  the  true  Church,  as 
no  longer  to  belong  to  the  body  of  Christ.  Anglicans  teach,  that  all 
societies  which  have  rejected  the  office,  or  lost  the  regular  succession 
of  the  episcopate,  have  ceased  to  be  Churches.  Protestants,  with  one 
voice,  deny  that  any  particular  Church  is  either  infallible,  or  secure 
from  fatal  apostasj^.  All  parties  therefore  agree  in  asserting  that  the 
promise  of  Christ  docs  not  secure  the  perpetuity  of  any  one  particular 
Church. 

The  great  majority  of  Papists  do  indeed  make  an  exception  in 
favour  of  the  city  of  Rome.  As  the  bishop  of  that  city  is  regarded  as 
the  vicar  of  Christ,  and  as  all  other  Churches  are  required  to  recognize 
and  obey  him  as  such  on  pain  of  exclusion  from  the  body  of  Christ,  so 
long  as  the  Church  continues  on  earth,  that  bishop  must  continue 
worthy  of  recognition  and  obedience.  Any  member  of  the  body  may 
die,  but  if  the  head  perish,  the  whole  body  perishes  with  it. 

But  since  there  is  no  special  promise  in  Scripture  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  it  can  be  made  an  exception  to  the  general  liability  to  defection 
only  on  the  assumption,  1.  That  Peter  was  made  the  head  of  the  whole 
Church.  2.  That  the  recognition  of  him  in  that  character  is  essential 
to  membership  ia  the  body  of  Christ.  3.  That  he  was  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  4.  That  the  Popes  are  his  legitimate  successors  in  the  bishopric 
of  that  city,  and  in  his  headship  over  the  Church,  5.  That  the  re- 
cognition of  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  an  essential  condition  for  all 
ages  of  the  existence  of  the  Church.  Every  one  of  these  assumptions, 
however,  is  false. 

The  second  proposition  is,  that  the  promise  of  Christ  does  not  secure  . 
his  Church  from  all  error  in  matters  of  faith.     The  Protestant  doc- 
trine is  that  a"  particular  Church,  and  even  the  whole  visible  Church, 


70  CHUECH  POLITY. 

may  err  in  matters  of  doctrine,  and  yet  retain  their  character  as 
Churches.  "  The  purest  Churches  under  heaven,"  says  the  West- 
minster Confession,  "  are  subject  to  mixture  and  error."  By  the  pro- 
fession of  the  truth,  therefore,  which  is  declared  to  be  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  Church,  must  be  understood  the  profession  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  This  distinction  between  essential 
and  non-essential  doctrines  is  one,  which,  however  it  may  be  denied,  is 
in  some  form  admitted  by  all  Christians.  Sometimes  the  distinction 
is  pressed  by  drawing  a  line  between  matters  of  faith  and  matters  of 
opinion ;  at  others,  by  distinguishing  between  truths  which  must  be 
received  with  explicit  faith,  and  those  "which  may  be  received  im- 
plicitly.    In  some  form  the  distinction  must  be  acknowledged. 

What  we  are  concerned  to  show  is,  that  the  existence  of  the  Church 
does  not  depend  on  its  absolute  freedom  from  error.  This  may  appear 
too  plain  a  point  to  need  proof;  and  yet  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  Romanism,  that  the  Church  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith. 
That  the  Church  may  thus  err,  is  proved,  1.  Because  nothing  can  be 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church  Avhich  is  not  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. Freedom  from  error  in  matters  of  doctrine,  is  not  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  therefore  cannot  be  necessary  to  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church. 

That  nothing  can  be  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church  which 
is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  is  so  nearly  a  self-evident  proposition, 
that  its  terms  cannot  be  understood  without  forcing  assent.  Salvation 
involves  union  with  Christ ;  union  with  Christ  involves  union  with  the 
Church,  for  the  Church  is  his  body ;  that  is,  it  consists  of  those  who 
are  united  to  Him.  Therefore,  nothing  which  is  compatible  with  union 
with  Christ,  can  be  incompatible  with  union  to  the  Church.  Con- 
sequently, the  Church  exists  so  long  as  true  believers  exist.  It  is  a 
contradiction,  therefore,  to  say  that  anything  is  necessary  to  the  being 
of  the  Church,  which  is  not  necessary  to  salvation. 

That  freedom  from  eri'or  in  matters  of  faith  is  not  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, is  scarcely  less  plain.  By  "  matters  of  faith  "  are  meant  those 
truths  which  God  has  revealed  in  his  word,  and  which  all  who  hear 
the  gospel  are  bound  to  believe.  Perfect  faith  supposes  perfect  know- 
ledge ;  and  such  perfection  cannot  be  necessary  to  salvation,  because  it 
is  not  necessary  to  piety.  It  is  of  course  admitted  that  knowledge  is 
essential  to  religion,  because  religion  consists  in  the  love,  belief,  and 
obedience  of  the  truth.  It  is  therefore  conceded,  that  all  religious 
error  must  be  injurious  to  religion,  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of 
the  truths  concerned.  If  such  errors  are  so  grave  as  to  present  a  false 
object  of  worship  to  the  mind,  or  to  lead  men  to  rest  on  a  false  ground 
of  confidence,  they  must  be  fatal.    But  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  very 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  71 

limited  amount  of  knowledge  is  absolutely  essential  to  faith  and  love. 
A  man  may  be  ignorant  of  much  that  God  has  revealed,  and  yet  re- 
ceiving with  humble  confidence  all  he  does  know,  and  acting  in  obedi- 
ence to  what  he  has  learned,  he  may  be  accepted  of  Him  who  judgeth 
according  to  that  a  man  hath,  and  not  according  to  that  he  hath  not. 
As  religion  may  consist  with  much  ignorance,  so  it  may  consist  with 
error.  There  is  indeed  little  practical  difference  between  the  two.  In 
both  cases  the  proper  object  of  faith  and  love  is  absent  from  the  mind ; 
and  when  absent  its  place  is  of  necessity  siipplied  by  some  erroneous 
conception.  If  a  man  know  not  the  true  God,  he  will  form  to  himself 
a  false  god.  If  he  know  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Lord  of  glory,  he 
■will  conceive  him  to  be  a  man  or  angel.  If  he  know  not  the  true 
method  of  salvation,  he  will  build  his  hope  on  some  wrong  foundation. 
But  if  perfect  knowledge  is  not  necessary  to  religion,  freedom  from 
error  cannot  be  essential.  And  if  not  essential  to  the  individual 
Christian,  it  cannot  be  essential  to  the  Church,  which  is  only  a  com- 
pany of  Christians.  The  Komish  and  Anglican  doctrine,  therefore, 
that  all  error  in  matters  of  faith  is  destructive  to  the  being  of  the 
Church,  or  that  the  promise  of  Christ  secures  the  Church  from  all  such 
error,  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  religion,  inasmuch  as  it  supposes 
freedom  from  error  to  be  necessary  to  its  existence. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  daily  observation.  "NYe  constantly  see  men 
who  give  every  evidence  of  piety,  who  are  either  ignorant  or  erroneous 
as  to  many  matters  of  faith.  The  Bible  also,  in  various  ways,  teaches 
the  same  doctrine.  It  distinguishes  between  babes  in  Christ,  and  those 
"who  are  strong.  It  recognizes  as  Christians  those  who  know  nothing 
beyond  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ.  It  teaches  that 
those  who  hold  the  foundation  shall  be  saved,  (though  so  as  by  fire,) 
although  they  build  on  that  foundation  wood,  hay,  and  stubble.  It 
recognizes  great  diversity  of  doctrine  as  existing  among  those  whom  it 
treats  as  being  substantially  one  in  faith.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that 
a  Christian  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith ;  and  if  one  may  err,  all 
may  ;  and  if  all  may,  the  Church  may.  The  perjietuity  of  the  Church 
consequently  does  not  imply  that  it  must  always  profess  the  truth, 
without  any  admixture  of  error. 

2.  The  historical  argument  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  doctrine  that 
the  Church  must  be  free  from  error  in  matters  of  faith,  is  no  le^s  de- 
cisive. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  the  Church  may  profess  its  faitli.  It 
may  be  done  by  its  public  authorized  confession  or  creed ;  or  it  may  be 
done  by  its  individual  members.  The  former  is  the  more  formal  and 
authoritative ;  but  the  latter  is  no  less  real.  The  Church  of  any  age 
consists  of  its  members  for  that  age.     What  the  members  profess,  the 


72  CIIUECH  POLITY. 

Church  professes.  The  apostasy  of  the  Church  of  Geneva  was  not  the 
less  real  because  the  old  orthodox  Confessions  were  allowed  to  remain. 
The  Churches  of  Germany  were  universally  considered  as  sunk  in  Ra- 
tionalism, even  though  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  nominally  their 
standard  of  faith.  The  lapse  of  the  Romish  Church  into  infidelity  and 
atheism  in  France  was  complete,  although  the  Apostles'  Creed  con- 
tinued to  be  professed  in  the  Church  services.  If  no  Church  could  be 
considered  as  having  lapsed  into  error,  so  long  as  its  standards  remain 
orthodox,  then  no  Church  can  ever  become  erroneous,  so  long  as  it 
professes  to  believe  the  Scriptures.  By  the  faith  of  a  Church  is  pro- 
perly meant  the  faith  of  its  actual  members ;  and  by  a  Church  pro- 
fessing error  is  meant  that  error  is  avowed  by  its  members.  The 
doctrine,  therefore,  that  the  Church  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith, 
must  mean  that  the  mass  of  its  members  cannot  thus  err ;  for  they  con- 
stitute the  Church,  and  if  they  err  the  Church  errs. 

There  is  no  historical  fact  better  established  than  that  no  external 
organized  body  has  ever  existed  free  from  error.  Even  during  the 
apostolical  age  the  Churches  of  Jerusalem,  of  Corinth,  and  of  Galatia, 
were  infected  with  serious  errors,  and  yet  they  were  Churches.  During 
the  first  three  centuries,  errors  concerning  the  Trinity,  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ,  the  person  and  office  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  nature  of 
man,  were  almost  universal.  From  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century,  no 
organized  body  can  be  pointed  out  whose  members  did  not  profess  doc- 
trines which  are  now  almost  universally  pronounced  to  be  erroneous. 
Since  the  Reformation,  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  differ  in  mat- 
ters of  doctrine.  The  Church  of  England  diflTers  from  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Churches.  So  that  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  freedom 
from  error  is  essential  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church.  No  Church  is 
absolutely  pure  in  doctrine ;  and  even  if  the  standards  of  the  Church 
should  be  faultless,  still  the  real  faith  of  its  members  is  not  The  pro- 
mise of  Christ,  therefore,  securing  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  docs 
not  secure  the  constant  existence  on  earth  of  any  body  of  men  who  are 
infallible  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice. 

The  third  proposition  is,  that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church  does  not 
involve  the  continued  existence  of  any  visible  organized  body  jjrofess- 
ing  the  true  religion,  and  furnished  with  regular  pastors. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  it  was  constantly  urged  against  the 
Protestants  that  they  were  bound  to  obey  the  Church.  To  this  they 
replied,  that  the  Church  to  which  the  obedience  of  the  faithful  is  due, 
was  not  the  Romish,  or  any  other  external  organization,  for  they  had 
all  departed  from  the  faith,  and  taught  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men.  To  this,  Romanists  rejoined,  that  if  that  were  true,  the 
Church  had  perished,  for  no  organized  visible  society  could  be  pointed 


PEEPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  73 

out  which  professed  the  doctrines  avowed  by  Protestants.  To  this 
again  the  Reformers  replied,  that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  which 
all  parties  admitted,  did  not  require  the  continued  existence  of  any 
such  society;  the  Church  might  exist,  and  at  times  had  existed  iu 
scattered  believers.  Calvin  says :  "  Li  his  cardinibus  controversia  nos- 
tra vertitur:  primum  quod  ecdesice  formam  semper  apparere  et  spedabi- 
lem  esse  contendunt :  deinde  quod  formam  ipsam  in  sede  Romance  Ecde- 
sice et  Prcesidum  suorum  ordine  constituant.  Nos  contra  asserimus,  et 
ecdesiam  nulla  apparente  forma  constare  posse,  nee  formam  externo  illo 
splendore  quern  stulte  admirantur,  sed  longe  alia  nota  contineri ;  nempe 
pura  verbi  Dei  p>rcedicatione,  et  legitima  sacramentorum  administratione. 
Fremunt  nisi  ecclesia  digito  semper  ostendatur."  * 

In  support  of  what  Calvin  thus  calls  one  of  the  cardinal  doctrines 
of  Protestants,  that  the  Church  may  be  perpetuated  in  scattered 
believers;  or  in  other  words,  that  the  apostasy  of  every  visible  or- 
ganized society  from  the  true  faith  is  consistent  with  the  perpetuity  of 
the  Church,  it  may  be  argued, 

1.  That  the  definition  of  the  Church  necessarily  involves  that  con- 
clusion. If  the  true  Church  consists  of  true  believers,  and  the  visible 
Church  of  professed  believers,  then  the  true  Church  continues  as  long 
as  true  believers  exist  on  earth  ;  and  the  visible  Church  so  long  as  pro- 
fessors of  the  true  religion  exist.  It  is  only  by  denying  the  correctness 
of  these  definitions  that  the  necessity  of  a  continued  visible  organiza- 
tion can  be  maintained.  Accordingly  Romanists  and  Anglicans  have 
been  obliged  to  depart  from  the  scriptural  view  of  the  nature  of  the 
Church,  and  to  make  external  organization  an  essential  element  of  its 
definition  in  order  to  have  any  ground  on  which  to  stand.  They 
maintain  that  the  Chui'ch  is  something  more  than  a  company  of 
believers,  or  a  collective  term  for  a  number  of  believers.  They 
insist  that  it  is  a  visible  organization,  subject  to  la^vful  pastors — some- 
thing that  can  be  pointed  to  with  the  finger.  If  to  such  an  organiza- 
tion the  promise  of  perpetuity  was  originally  given,  then  Protestants 
were  schismatics,  and  their  Chui'ches  are  apostate.  But  if  their  view 
of  the  nature  of  the  Church  be  correct,  then  their  view  of  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  perpetual  must  also  be  correct. 

2.  The  promises  of  the  word  of  God  which  secure  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church,  require  nothing  more  than  the  continued  existence  of  profes- 
sors of  the  true  religion.  Thus,  when  our  Lord  says,  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  never  prevail  against  his  Church ;  if  by  Church  he  meant  his 

*  Preface  to  the  Institutes,  p.  15.  Had  Calvin  lived  in  our  day  he  would  hear 
with  surprise  zealous  Protestants,  and  even  Presbyterians,  crying  out  against  the 
doctrine  that  visible  organization  is  not  essential  to  the  Church. 


74  CHURCH  POLITY. 

people,  his  promise  only  renders  it  certain  that  he  shall  always  have  a 
seed  to  serve  him,  or  that  there  shall  always  be  true  followers  and 
•worshij)per3  of  Christ  on  the  earth.  Thus,  also,  the  declaration  of 
Christ,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world," 
holds  good,  even  though  all  the  temples  of  Christians  should  be  de- 
stroyed, their  faithful  pastors  scattered  or  slain,  and  they  forced  to 
wander  about,  being  destitute,  afflicted  and  tormented,  hiding  in  dens 
and  caves  of  the  earth.  Nay,  his  presence  will  only  be  the  more  con- 
spicuous in  the  sight  of  saints  and  angels,  in  sustaining  the  faith  and 
patience  of  his  people  under  all  these  trials,  and  in  causing  them  to 
triumph  through  suffering,  and  become  great  through  weakness.  The 
presence  of  God  was  more  illustriously  displayed  with  the  three  confes- 
sors in  the  fiery  furnace,  than  with  Solomon  in  all  his  glory.  Pro- 
testants believe  with  Tertullian — "  Ubi  ires  sunt,  etlamsi  laid,  Ibi  eccle- 
sla  est." 

The  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  speak  of  an  everlasting 
covenant  Avhich  God  was  to  form  >vith  his  people,  (Isa.  Ixi.,)  and  of  a 
kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  (Dan.  ii.  44,)  do  indeed 
clearly  establish  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  but  not  of  an  external 
organization.  The  kingdom  of  God  consists  of  those  who  obey  him ; 
and  as  long  as  there  are  any  who  recognize  Christ  as  their  king,  so 
long  will  his  kingdom  continue.  His  promise  renders  it  certain  that 
such  subjects  of  the  heavenly  King  shall  never  entirely  fail  from 
among  men ;  and  also  that  their  number  shall  ultimately  so  increase, 
that  they  shall  possess  the  whole  earth.  More  than  this  these  predic- 
tions do  not  render  necessary.  They  do  not  preclude  the  possibility 
of  the  temporary  triumph  of  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  dispersing 
its  members,  and  causing  them  to  wander  about,  known  only  to 
God.  Nor  do  they  preclude  the  occurrence  of  a  general  apostasy, 
so  extended  as  to  embrace  all  the  visible  organizations  calling 
themselves  churches.  Whether  such  an  apostasy  has  ever  actually 
occurred,  is  not  now  the  question.  All  that  is  asserted  is  that  these 
promises  and  predictions  do  not  forbid  its  occurrence.  They  may 
all  be  yea  and  amen,  though  the  faithful  for  a  season  be  as  few 
and  as  unknown,  as  the  seven  thousand  who  did  not  bow  the  knee  unto 
Baal. 

Further,  when  St.  Paul  says,  "  Then  we  who  are  alive  and  remain, 
shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  air,  and  so  shall  we  be  ever 
with  the  Lord,"  (1  Thess.  iv.  17,)  the  only  inference  is,  that  there  shall 
be  Christians  living  on  the  earth  when  Christ  comes  the  second'time. 
The  parable  of  the  wheat  and  tares  proves  that  until  the  consummation 
there  will  be  true  and  false  professors  of  the  religion  of  the  gospel,  but 
it  proves  nothing  more. 


PEEPETUITY  OF  THE  CIIUECH.  75 

Such  are  the  leading  scriptural  arguments  urged  by  Bellarmin  *  and 
Palmer  f  for  the  Romish  and  Anglican  view  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church.  They  prove  what  Protestants  admit,  but  they  do  not  prove 
what  their  opponents  assert.  That  is,  they  px^ove  that  the  people  of 
God  shall  continue  to  exist  on  the  earth  until  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  but  they  do  not  prove  the  continued  existence  of  any  visible 
organization  professing  the  true  faith,  and  subject  to  pastors  havino- 
succession.  If  it  be  granted  that  the  word  Church,  in  Sci-ipture,  is  a 
collective  term  for  the  people  of  God,  then  the  promises  which  secure 
the  continued  existence  of  a  seed  to  serve  God  as  long  as  the  world 
lasts,  do  not  secure  the  continued  fidelity  of  the  visible  Church,  con- 
sidered as  an  organized  body. 

3.  A  third  argument  on  this  subject  is,  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
the  continued  existence  of  the  Church  as  an  external  visible  society. 
That  is,  there  is  no  revealed  purpose  of  God,  which  involves  such 
existence  as  the  necessary  means  of  its  accomplishment.  Bellarmin's 
argument  on  this  point  is,  "  If  the  Church  should  ever  be  reduced  to 
such  a  state  as  to  be  unknown,  the  salvation  of  those  out  of  the  Church 
would  be  impossible.  For  no  man  can  be  saved  unless  he  enters  the 
Church,  but,  if  the  Church  be  unknown,  it  cannot  be  entei'ed,  therefore, 
men  cannot  be  saved."  J  Mr.  Palmer's  argument  is  to  the  same  effect. 
"  If  the  Church  as  an  organization  were  to  fail,"  he  says,  "  there  would 
be  no  way  to  revive  it,  except  by  a  direct  and  immediate  interposition 
of  God;  which  would  prove  the  gospel  to  be  a  temporary  dispensation, 
and  all  living  subsequently  to  its  failure  would  be  deprived  of  its 
benefits." 

The  answer  to  this  is  that  the  argument  rests  on  the  unscriptural 
assumption,  that  we  become  united  to  Christ  by  being  united  to  the 
Church  as  an  external  visible  society ;  whereas  union  with  Christ  in 
the  divine  order  precedes,  and  is  entirely  independent  of  union  with 

*  De  Ecclesia,  cap.  13. 

f  Palmer  on  the  Church,  part  i.  ch.  i.  sec.  1.  Mr.  Palmer's  chapter  on  this 
subject  is  one  of  the  most  illogical  in  all  his  elaborate  work.  Without  defining 
his  terms,  he  quotes  promises  and  predictions  which  imply  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church,  and  then  quotes  from  Pr6testant  writers  of  all  denominations,  passages  to 
show  that  the  continued  existence  of  the  Church  is  a  conceded  point.  Every  step 
of  his  argument,  throughout  his  book,  and  all  his  important  deductions,  rest  on 
the  assumption  that  the  Church,  whose  perpetuity  is  thus  proved  or  conceded,  is 
an  external  organization,  consisting  of  those  who  profess  the  truth,  without  any 
error  in  matters  of  faith,  and  who  are  subject  to  pastors  episcopally  and  canoni- 
cally  ordained.  Everything  is  founded  on  this  chapter,  which  quietly  takes  for 
granted  the  thing  to  be  proved. 

J  De  Ecclesia,  lib.  iii.  c.  13. 


76  CHURCH  POLITY. 

any  visible  society.  "  That  our  union  with  some  present  visible 
Church,"  says  Dr.  Jackson,  one  of  the  greatest  di\anes  of  the  Church 
of  England,  "  is  a  native  degree  or  part  of  our  union  with  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  [i.  e.,  the  body  of  Christ ;]  or,  that  our  union  with 
some  present  visible  church  is  essential  to  our  being,  or  not  being 
members  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  is  what  "we  utterly  deny."  * 

That  such  union  with  the  visible  Church  as  the  argument  of  Bellar- 
min  supposes  is  not  necessary  to  salvation  is  plain,  because  all  that 
the  Scriptures  require  in  order  to  salvation,  is  repentance  towards  God, 
and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Baptism  has  indeed  the  neces- 
sity of  precept,  as  something  commanded ;  but  even  Romanists  ad- 
mit that  where  the  desire  for  baptism  exists,  the  mere  want  of 
the  rite  works  no  forfeiture  of  salvation.  And  they  also  admit  the 
validity  of  lay  baptism  ;  so  that  even  if  the  necessity  of  that  ordinance 
were  conceded,  it  would  not  involve  the  necessity  of  an  external  organ- 
ized Church,  or  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  the  ministry.  If,  there- 
fore, the  whole  visible  organized  Church  should  apostatize  or  be  dis- 
,persed  by  persecution,  the  door  of  heaven  would  be  as  wide  open  as 
ever.  Wherever  Christ  is  known,  men  may  obey  and  love  him,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  a  priest. 

Mr.  Palmer's  idea,  that  if  the  Church  as  a  society  should  fail,  it 
could  only  be  revived  by  a  new  revelation  or  intervention  of  God,  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  the  Church  is  a  corporation  Avith  supernatural 
prerogatives  and  powers,  which  if  once  dissolved  perishes  entirely. 
The  Church  however  is  only  the  people  of  God ;  if  they  should  bo 
scattered  even  for  years,  as  soon  as  they  assemble  for  the  worship  of 
God,  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  the  exercise  of  disci- 
pline, the  Church  as  a  society  is  there,  as  good  as  ever ;  and  a  thousand 
times  better  than  the  fossil  Churches  which  have  preserved  their  or- 
ganic continuity  only  by  being  petrified.  Should  the  succession  of  the 
ministry  fail,  no  harm  i8  done.  The  validity  of  the  ministry  does  not  de- 
pend on  such  succession.  It  is  not  the  prerogative  of  prelates  to  make 
ministers.  A  minister  is  made  by  the  inward  call  of  the  Spirit.  The 
whole  office  of  the  Church  in  the  matter  is  to  sit  in  judgment  on  that 
call,  and,  if  satisfied,  to  authenticate  it.  The  failure  of  the  succession, 
therefore,  works  no  failure  in  the  stream  of  life,  as  the  Spirit  is  not 
confined  to  the  channel  of  the  ministry.  The  apostasy  or  dispersion 
of  the  whole  organized  Church,  is  not  inconsistent  with  its  continued 
existence,  or  incompatible  with  the  accomplishment  of  all  the  revealed 
purposes  of  God.  Men  may  still  be  saved,  and  the  ministry  and  sa- 
craments be  perpetuated  in  all  their  efficiency  and  power. 

*  Treatise  on  the  Church,  p.  143; 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  77 

Again,  Bellarmin  presents  the  following  dilemma.  "  Either,"  he 
says,  "  those  secret  men  who  constitute  the  invisible  Church,  continue 
to  profess  the  true  religion  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do,  the  Church  con- 
tinues visible  and  conspicuously  so,  in  them.  If  they  do  not  confess 
the  truth,  then  the  Church  in  every  sense  fails,  for  without  confession 
there  is  no  salvation." 

This  is  an  illustration  of  the  impossibility  of  errorists  avoiding  laps- 
ing into  the  truth.  Here  is  one  of  the  acutest  polemics  Kome  ever 
produced,  surrendering  the  whole  matter  in  debate.  These  secret  con- 
fessors are  not  a  society  of  faithful  men,  subject  to  lawful  pastors  and 
to  the  Poj)e.  It  is  precisely  w'hat  Romanists  deny,  and  Protestants 
affirm,  that  the  Church  may  be  perpetuated  in  scattered  believers, 
each  in  his  own  narrow  sphere  confessing  the  truth,  and  this  is  here 
conceded.  This  is  what  Protestants  affirm  of  the  Church  before  the 
Reformation.  Every  conspicuous  organization  had  lapsed  into  idolatry, 
and  yet  the  Church  was  continued  in  thousands  of  God's  chosen  ones 
who  never  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  on  this  subject  is  derived  from  the  predictions 
of  general  apostasy  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  Our  Lord  foretold 
that  false  Christs  should  come  and  deceive  many.  He  warned  his 
disciples  that  they  should  be  persecuted  and  hated  of  all  nations ;  that 
iniquity  should  abound,  and  the  love  of  many  wax  cold ;  that  false 
prophets  should  arise  and  show  signs  and  wonders,  insomuch  that,  if  it 
were  possible,  they  would  deceive  the  very  elect.  He  intimated  that 
faith  should  hardly  be  found  when  he  came  again ;  that  it  will  be 
then  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noah,  or  in  the  time  of  Lot,  only  a  few 
here  and  there  would  be  found  faithful.  The  apostles  also  are  frequent 
and  explicit  in  their  declarations  that  a  general  apostasy  was  to  occur. 
The  Spirit,  says  Paul,  speaketh  expressly  that  in  the  latter  times  some 
shall  depart  from  the  faith.  1  Tim.  iv.  1.  In  the  last  days,  perilous 
times  were  to  come  (2  Tim.  iii.  4  ) ;  times  in  which  men  would  not 
endure  sound  doctrine,  (iv.  8.).  The  day  of  Christ,  he  says,  was  not 
to  come  before  the  rise  of  the  man  of  sin,  whose  coming  was  to  be 
attended  by  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying 
wonders,  when  men  (the  professing  Church  generally)  should  be  given 
up  to  believe  a  lie.  Peter  foretold  that  in  the  last  times  there  should 
be-  false  prophets  and  scorners,  who  would  bring  in  damnable  heresies. 
2  Pet.  ii.  1 ;  iii.  3.  And  the  apostle  Jude  reminds  his  readers  of  the 
words  which  were  spoken  by  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
how  they  told  you  that  in  the  last  time  there  should  be  mockers, 
walking  after  their  own  lusts.     Jude  18. 

Although  these  passages  do  not  go  the  full  length  of  the  proposition 
above  stated,  or  render  it  necessary  to  asume  that  no  organized  body 


78  CHUECH  POLITY. 

was  to  exist  during  this  apostasy,  which  professed  the  true  faith,  yet 
they  are  entirely  inconsistent  witli  the  Eomish  and  Anglican  theory. 
That  theory  is  that  the  catholic  Church,  or  the  great  body  of  professing 
Christians  united  under  lawful  pastors,  can  never  err  in  matters  of  faith. 
"Whereas  these  passages  foretell  an  apostasy  from  the  truth  so  general, 
that  true  believers  are  to  be  few  and  scattered,  driven  into  the  wilder- 
ness, and  in  a  great  measure  unknown  to  men. 

5.  The  history  of  the  Church  before  the  advent  of  Clirist,  proves 
that  its  perpetuity  does  not  involve  the  continued  existence  of  any 
organization  professing  the  true  religion.  The  Church  has  existed 
from  the  beginning.  AVe  know,  however,  that  there  was,  before  the 
flood,  an  apostasy  so  general  that  Noah  and  his  family  were  the  only 
believers  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Soon  after  the  flood  the  defection 
from  the  truth  again  became  so  far  universal,  that  no  organized  body 
of  the  worshipjDcrs  of  God  can  be  pointed  out.  Abraham  was,  there- 
fore, called  to  be  the  "head  of  a  new  organization.  His  descendants,  to 
whom  i:)ertaiued  the  law,  the  covenants,  and  the  promises,  constituted 
the  visible  Church;  nevertheless  they  often  and  for  long  periods 
lapsed  into  idolatry.  All  public  celebration  of  the  worship  of  the 
true  God  was  intermitted  ;  altars  to  Baal  were  erected  in  every  part  of 
the  land ;  the  true  children  of  God  were  scattered  and  unknown,  so 
that  under  Ahab,  the  prophet  complained :  "  Lord,  they  have  killed 
thy  prophets,  and  digged  down  thine  altars,  and  I  am  left  alone." 
Where  was  then  the  visible  Church  ?  Where  was  then  any  organized 
society  professing  the  true  religion?  The  seven  thousand  who  had  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  were  indeed  the  Church,  but  they  were  not  an 
organized  body.     They  were  unknown  even  to  Elijah. 

To  this  argument  Bellarmin  answers,  that  the  Jewish  Church  was 
not  catholic  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Christian  Church  now  is,  because 
good  men  existed  outside  the  pale  of  the  Je-\vish  Church :  and,  there- 
fore, although  all  within  the  Jewish  communion  had  apostatized,  it 
would  not  follow  that  the  whole  Church  had  failed.  This  is  very  true 
on  the  Protestant  theory  of  the  Church,  but  not  on  his.  Protestants 
hold  that  the  Church  consists  of  true  believers,  and  therefore  so  long 
as  such  believers  exist,  the  Church  exists.  But  according  to  Romanists 
the  Church  is  a  corporation,  an  external,  visible,  organized  society. 
It  is  very  clear  that  no  such  society  existed  except  among  the  Jews, 
and  therefore  if  the  Jewish  Church  lapsed  into  idolatry,  there  was  no 
Church  on  earth  to  answer  to  the  Romish  theory. 

Another  answer  to  the  above  argument  is,  that  the  complaint  of 
Elijah  had  reference  only  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel ;  that  although  the 
defection  there  had  been  universal,  the  true  Church  as  an  organized 
body  was  continued  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah.     To  this  it  may  be 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHUECH.  79 

replied,  that  the  prophet  probably  intended  to  include  both  kingdoms, 
because  he  complains  of  digging  down  the  altars  of  God ;  but  there 
were  no  altars  of  God  except  at  Jerusalem.  Besides,  the  prophet 
could  hardly  have  felt  so  entirely  alone,  and  wished  for  death,  if  the 
"worship  of  God  were  then  celebrated  at  Jerusalem,  What,  however, 
is  more  to  the  purpose  is,  that  it  is  plain  that  the  apostle  in  Rom.  xi.  2, 
evidently  uses  the  word  Israel  not  in  its  restricted  sense  for  the  ten 
tribes,  but  for  the  whole  theocratical  people.  He  appeals  to  the  words 
of  the  prophet  for  the  very  purpose  of  proving  that  the  rejection  of 
the  Jews  as  a  body  involved  no  failure  of  the  divine  promise.  As  in 
the  days  of  Elijah  there  were  an  unknown  few  who,  in  the  midst  of 
general  apostasy,  did  not  bow  to  Baal ;  so  notwithstanding  the  general 
defection  and  rejection  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  there  was 
still  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  Paul's  design  was 
to  teach  that  the  Church  might  be  perpetuated,  and  in  fact  had  been 
perpetuated  in  scattered  unknown  believers,  although  the  visible 
Church  as  a  society  entirely  apostatized. 

Admitting,  however,  that  the  complaint  of  Elijah  had  exclusive 
reference  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  it  still  proves  all  that  the  argument 
demands.  It  proves  that  the  Church  as  visible  in  that  kingdom  had 
apostatized  and  was  continued  in  the  seven  thousand.  This  proves  two 
points :  first,  that  scattered  believers,  although  members  of  no  external 
society,  may  be  members  of  the  Church  ;  and  second,  that  the  Church 
may  be  continued  in  such  unknown  believers.  This  is  precisely  what 
Romanists  and  Anglicans  deny,  and  what  Protestants  affirm  ;  and  what 
Cahdn  declares  to  be  one  of  the  cardinal  or  turning  points  in  our  con- 
troversy with  Rome. 

Besides,  whatever  may  have  been  the  condition  of  the  Church  in 
Jerusalem  at  the  period  to  which  the  prophet  referred,  it  is  certain  that 
idolatry  did  at  other  times  prevail  contemporaneously  in  both  king- 
doms ;  and  that  after  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes  wicked  kings  set  up 
idols  even  in  the  temple.  Thus  we  read  in  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  4,  5,  that 
Manasseh  built  altars  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  whereof  the  Lord  had 
said,  In  Jerusalem  shall  my  name  be  for  ever.  And  he  built  altars  in 
the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  .  .  And  he  set  up  a  carved 
image,  the  idol  which  he  had  made,  in  the  house  of  God  .  .  .  made 
Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  to  err  and  to  da  worse  than 
the  heathen.'  It  is  plain  that  the  public  worship  of  God,  all  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  Jewish  Church,  all  sacrifices  and  service  of  the  tcmjile 
were  abolished  under  this  and  other  wicked  princes.  And  when  at  last 
the  patience  of  God  was  wearied  out,  Jerusalem  itself  was  taken,  the 
temple  was  destroyed,  and  the  people  carried  away.  During  the  seventy 
years  of  the  captivity  the  visible  Church  as  an  organized  body,  with  its 


80  CHUECH  POLITY. 

priests  and  sacrifices,  ceased  to  exist.  It  was  continued  only  in  the  dis- 
persed worshippers  of  the  true  God.  Subsequently  to  the  return  of  the 
people  and  the  restoration  of  the  temple,  under  the  persecutions  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes  the  23ublic  worship  of  God  was  again  suppressed. 
Idols  were  erected  in  the  temple,  and  altars  dedicated  to  false  gods 
were  erected  in  every  part  of  the  land.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
under  the  old  dispensation  the  visible  Church  had,  as  it  were,  a  local 
habitation.  It  wa3  so  connected  with  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  that 
when  those  sacred  places  were  in  possession  of  idolaters,  the  Church 
was,  for  the  time  being,  disorganized.  No  sacrifice  could  be  offered, 
and  all  the  functions  of  the  priesthood  were  suspended. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  shows  that  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church  does  not  depend  on  the  regular  succession  of  a  visible  society, 
and  especially  on  the  regular  succession  of  the  ministry,  as  Romanists 
and  Anglicans  assert.  By  the  law  of  Moses  it  was  expressly  ordered 
that  the  office  of  High  Priest  should  be  confined  to  the  family  of  Aaron, 
and  descend  in  that  family  by  regular  descent.  Even  before  the  cap- 
tivity, however,  the  priesthood  was  changed  from  one  branch  of  that 
family  to  another,  descending  first  in  the  line  of  Eleazar,  (Num.  iii.  32. 
Deut.  X.  6 ;)  from  Eli  to  Solomon  in  that  of  Ithamar ;  then  returning 
to  that  of  Eleazar,  (1  Sam.  ii.  35.  1  Kings  ii.  35.)  From  the  latter 
passage  it  appears  that  Solomon  displaced  Abiathar  and  appointed 
Zadok.  Under  the  Maccabees  the  office  was  given  to  the  hero  Jona- 
than, of  the  priestly  family  of  Joiarib,  (1  Mace.  xiv.  35,  41 ;)  after  his 
death  it  was  transferred  to  his  brother  Simon ;  and  under  Herod  the 
office  was  sold  to  the  highest  bidder,  or  given  at  the  discretion  of  the 
king.  (Josh.  Antiq.  xx.  10.)  Caiaphas  was  made  High  Priest  by 
Valerius  Gratus,  the  Procurator  of  Judea,  and  soon  after  the  death  of 
Christ  he  was  displaced  by  the  Proconsul  Vitellius.  (Joseph,  xviii. 
4,  3.)  If  then,  notwithstanding  the  express  injunction  of  the  law,  the 
priesthood  was  thus  changed,  men  being  introduced  into  the  office  and 
displaced  from  it  by  the  ruling  powers  without  legitimate  authority, 
and  still  the  office  continued,  and  the  actual  incumbent  was  recognized 
as  high  priest  even  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  tlie  existence  of  the  Church  is  suspended  on  the  regular  succession 
of  the  ministry  under  the  New  Testament,  where  there  is  no  express 
law  prescribing  the  mode  of  descent.  The  Old  Testament  history, 
therefore,  distinctly  proves  that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church  involves 
neither  the  perpetual  existence  of  an  organized  body  professing  the  true 
religion,  nor  the  regular  transmission  of  the  ministerial  office.  In 
other  words,  the  apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  or  in  the  ministry, 
which  is  the  great  Diana  of  the  Ephesians,  is  a  mere  figment. 

Another  illustration  on  this  subject  may  be  derived  from  the  state  of 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  81 

the  Church  during  the  time  of  Christ.  The  Jews  were  then  divided 
into  three  sects,  the-  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and  the  Essenes.  Of 
these  the  Pharisees  were  the  most  correct  in  doctrine,  and  yet  they 
made  the  word  of  God  of  no  effect  by  their  traditions,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.  They  asserted  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  works  in  its  grossest  form ;  they  attributed  saving 
efficacy  to  external  rites ;  and  they  were  great  persecutors  of  Christ. 
The  people  in  their  organized  capacity,  through  their  official  organs, 
the  priesthood  and  the  Sanhedrim,  rejected  and  crucified  the  Lord  of 
glory.  The  Christian  Church,  as  distinguished  from  the  Jewish,  was 
not  organized  until  after  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  Where  then, 
during  the  period  referred  to,  was  there  any  organized  body  which 
professed  the  true  religion  ?  The  Protestant  theory  provides  for  this 
case,  the  Romish  theory  does  not.  The  one  theory  is  consistent  with 
notorious  historical  facts ;  the  other  theory  is  inconsistent  with  them. 

To  all  this,  however,  Bellarmin  and  others  object  that  the  privileges 
of  the  Christian  Church  are  so  much  greater  than  tho,=e  of  the  Jewish, 
that  we  cannot  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  latter  apostatized  that  the 
former  may  depart  from  the  faith.  To  this  we  answer  that  the  promises 
of  God  are  the  only  foundation  of  the  security  of  the  Church.  The 
promises  addressed  to  the  Jewish  Church  were  as  explicit  and  as  com- 
j)rehensive  as  those  addressed  to  the  Christian  Church.  If  those 
joromises  were  consistent  with  the  apostasy  of  the  whole  organized  body 
of  the  Jews,  they  must  be  consistent  with  a  similar  apostasy  on  the 
part  of  Cliristians.  God  promised  to  Abraham  to  be  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him. ;  that  though  a  woman  might  forsake  her 
sucking  child,  he  would  never  forsake  Zion.  But  he  did  forsake  Zion 
as  an  organized  ]  community ;  he  did^  permit  the  seed  of  Abraham 
as  a  body  to  lapse  into  idolatry,  to  reject  and  crucify  their  Messiah ; 
he  permitted  Jerusalem  to  be  destroyed,  and  the  people  to  whom 
were  given  the  covenants,  the  law,  and  the  promises,  to  be  scattered 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  These  promises,  therefore,  as  Paul  argues, 
were  not  intended  to  guaranty  the  continued  existence  of  Israel 
as  a  society  faithful  to  the  truth,  but  simply  the  continued  existence 
of  true  believers.  As  the  Jews  argued  that  the  promises  of  God 
secured  the  continued  fidelity  of  the  external  Israel ;  so  Bellarmin 
and  Mr.  Palmer,  (Rome  and  Oxford,)  argue  that  his  promises  secure 
the  continued  fidelity  of  the  visible  Church.  And  as  Paul  teaches 
that  the  rejection  of  the  external  Israel  was  consistent  with  the  fidelity 
of  God,  because  the  true  Israel,  hidden  in  the  external  body,  continued 
faithful ;  so  Protestants  teach  that  the  apostasy  of  the  whole  external 
organized  Church  is  consistent  with  the  promises  of  God,  provided  a 
remnant,  however  small  and  however  scattered,  adheres  to  the  truth. 
6 


82  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  argument  from  tlie  history  of  the  Church  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion is  therefore  legitimate  and  scriptural.  Nothing  is  promised  to  the 
Church  now,  that  was  not  promised  to  the  Church  then.  Whatever 
happened  to  the  one,  may  happen  to  the  other. 

6.  The  history  of  the  Church  since  the  advent  of  Christ  is  no  less 
conclusive  against  the  Romish  theory.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assert 
that  the  whole  visible  Church  has  at  any  time  been  so  far  apostate, 
that  no  organized  body  existed  professing  the  true  faith.  All  that  is 
requisite  is  to  prove  that  the  Church,  in  the  sense  in  which  Romanists 
and  Anglicans  understand  the  term,  has  at  times  denied  the  faith.  By 
the  Church  they  mean  the  multitude  of  jirofessed  Christians  subject  to 
Prelates  or  to  the  Pope.  This  body  has  apostatized.  There  have  been 
times  in  wdiich  the  Church  has  officially  and  by  its  appropriate  and 
acknowledged  organs,  (as  understood  by  Ritualists,)  professed  doctrines 
universally  admitted  to  be  heretical.  Romanists  and  Anglicans  say 
that  this  Church  is  represented  by  the  chief  pastors  or  bishops,  and 
that  the  decisions  of  these  bishops,  either  assembled  in  council,  or  each 
acting  for  himself,  are  the  decisions  of  the  Church,  to  which  all  the 
faithful  are  bound  to  submit.  The  decision  of  the  three  hundred  and 
eighty  bishops  assembled  at  Nice,  in  favour  of  the  proper  divinity  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  is  considered  as  the  decision  of  the  whole  Church,  not- 
withstanding the  fewness  of  their  number,  and  the  fact  that  they  were 
not  delegates  or  representatives,  and  the  further  fact,  that  they  were 
almost  entirely  from  the  West,  because  that  decision  was  ratified  by  the 
silent  acquiescence  of  the  majority  of  the  absent  bishops.  The  fact 
that  a  great  many  of  the  Eastern  bishops  dissented  from  that  decision 
and  sided  with  Arius,  is  not  allowed  to  invalidate  the  authority  of  the 
council.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  the  decisions  of  the  contemiwraneous 
councils,  that  of  Seleucia  in  the  East,  and  of  Ariminum  in  the  West, 
were  the  decisions  of  the  Church.  Those  councils  together  comprised 
eight  hundred  bishops ;  they  were  convened  by  the  Emperor,  their 
decisions  were  ratified  by  the  Pope  or  bishop  of  Rome,  and  by  the  vast 
majority  of  the  bishops  of  Christendom.  Yet  the  decisions  of  these 
councils  were  heretical.     They  denied  the  j)roper  Divinity  of  our  Lord. 

It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  acquiescence  in  these  decisions  was 
less  general  than  that  accorded  to  those  of  the  orthodox  council  of 
Nice.  The  reverse  was  notoriously  the  fact.  Jerome  in  his  Dialogue 
"Contra  Luciferianos,"  says:  " Ingemuit  orhis  ierrarum,  et  se  Arianum 
miratus  est."  In  his  comment  on  Psalm  cxxxiii. — "  Ecclesia  non  in 
parietibus  consistit,  seel  in  dogmatum  veritate ;  ecclesia,  ihi  est,  ubi  fides 
vera  est.  Ceteruvi  ante  annos  quindecirn  aut  viginti  parietes  omnes 
ecclesiarum  hceretlei  possldebant ;  eccclesia  autem  vera  illlc  erat,  ubi 
fides  vera  er at."     Athanasius  himself  asks:  "  Qiice  nunc  ecclesia  libcre 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  83 

Christum   adorat  ? Nam  si   alicuhi  sunt   pii  et   Christi  studiosi 

{sunt  autem  ubique  tales  permidti)  ilU  itidem,  ut  magnus  ille  propheta 
Elias,  abscondUntur,  et  in  speluncas  et  cavernas  terrce  sese  abstrudunt, 
aut  in  soUtudine  aberrantes  corr*morantur."  Lib.  ad  solitar.  vitam 
agentes.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  says :  "  Arianoru7n  venenum  non  jam 
portiunculam  quandam,  sed  pene  orbem  totiim  contaminaverat ;  adeo 
fere  cunctis  Latini  sermonis  episcopis  partim  vi  partim  fraude  deceptis 
caligo  qucedam  offunderetur.'"  Adv.  liceres.  novationes.  Thus  accord- 
ing to  Jerome  the  heretics  were  in  possession  of  all  church  edifices ; 
according  to  Athanasius  the  worshippers  of  Christ  were  hidden,  or  wan- 
dered about  in  solitude;  and  according  to  Vincent,  the  poison  of  Arian- 
ism  infected  the  world.  "After  the  defection  of  Liberius,"  says  Dr. 
Jackson,  "  the  whole  Roman  Empire  was  overspread  Avith  Arianism." 
If  therefore  the  Church  was  orthodox  under  Constantino,  it  was  hereti- 
cal under  Constantius.  It  professed  Arianisin  under  the  latter,  more 
generally  than  it  had  professed  the  truth  under  the  former.  For  the 
bishops  were  "  forty  to  one  against  Athanasius." 

It  will  not  avail  to  say  that  these  bishops  were  deceived  or  intimi- 
dated. First,  because  the  point  is  not  why  they  apostatized,  but  that 
they  did  apostatize.  This,  the  Romish  and  Anglican  theory  teaches,  the 
representatives  of  the  Church  cannot  do,  without  the  Church  perishing 
and  the  promise  of  God  failing.  And  secondly,  because  the  same  objec- 
tion might  be  made  to  the  validity  of  the  decisions  of  the  council  of  Nice. 
Many  bishops  feigned  agreement  with  those  decisions ;  many  signed 
them  from  fear  of  banishment;  many  because  they  thought  they  could 
be  interpreted  in  a  sense  which  suited  their  views.  If  these  considera- 
tions do  not  invalidate  the  authority  of  the  orthodox  councils,  they 
cannot  be  urged  against  the  authority  of  those  which  were  heterodox. 
Every  argument  which  proves  that  the  visible  Church  was  Trinitarian 
at  one  time,  proves  that  it  was  Arian  at  another  time ;  and  therefore 
the  Church  in  the  Romish  and  Anglican  sense  of  that  term,  may  apos- 
tatize. 

So  undeniable  is  the  fact  of  the  general  prevalence  of  Arianism,  that 
Romanists  and  Anglicans  are  forced  to  abandon  their  fundamental 
principles,  in  their  attempts  to  elude  the  argument  from  this  source. 
Bellarmin  says,  the  Church  was  conspicuous  in  that  time  of  defection 
in  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Vincent,  and  others.*  And  Mt.  Palmer  says 
the  truth  was  preserved  even  under  Arian  bishops.f  Here  they  are  on 
Protestant  ground.  "We  teach  that  the  Cliurch  is  where  the  truth  is ; 
that  the  Church  may  be  continued  in  scattered  individuals.  They 
teach  that  the  Church,  as  an  organized  body,  the  great  multitude  of 

*  De  Ecclesia,  lib.  iii.  cap.  iQ.  f  Palmer  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  187. 


84  CHURCH  POLITY. 

professors  under  prelates,  must  always  profess  the  truth.  The  facts  are 
against  them,  and  therefore  their  doctrine  must  be  false. 

7.  The  only  other  argument  in  favour  of  the  position  that  the  external 
Church  may  apostatize,  is  the  concession  of  opponents.  So  far  as  the 
Anglican  or  Oxford  party  of  the  Church  of  England  are  concerned, 
they  are  estopped  by  the  authority  of  their  own  Church  and  by  .the  facts 
of  her  history. 

Before  the  Reformation,  that  Church,  in  common  with  all  the  recog- 
nized Churches  of  the  West,  and  the  great  body  also  of  the  Eastern 
Churches,  held  the  doctrines  of  transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass,  subjective  justification,  the  priestly  character  of  the  ministry,  the 
invocation  of  saints,  the  worship  of  images,  extreme  unction  and  pur- 
gatory. These  doctrines  the  English  Church  rejected,  pronouncing 
the  mass  idolatrous,  and  the  other  errors  heretical.  According  to  her 
own  oflicial  declaration,  therefore,  the  whole  Church  embraced  in  the 
Oxford  definition  of  the  term,  had  apostatized  from  the  faith,  and 
become  idolatrous.  To  say,  with  the  Anglican  party,  that  the  points 
of  difference  between  Rome  and  England  are  matters  of  oj)inion,  and 
not  matters  of  faith,  is  absurd.  Because  both  parties  declare  them  to 
be  matters  of  faith,  and  because  they  fall  under  the  definition  of 
matters  of  faith,  as  given  by  the  Anglicans  themselves.  Any  doctrine 
which  the  Church  at  any  time  has  pronounced  to  be  part  of  the  revela- 
tion of  God,  they  say  is  a  matter  of  faith.  But  the  doctrines  above 
mentioned  were  all  for  centuries  part  of  the  faith  of  the  whole  catholic 
Church,  and  therefore  cannot  be  referred  to  matters  of  opinion.  It  is, 
therefore,  impossible  that  the  Church  of  England  can  deny  the  pro- 
position that  the  catholic  Church,  as  a  visible  organization,  may  apos- 
tatize. All  the  great  divines  of  England,  consequently,  teach  that  the 
Church  may  be  jDcrpetuated  in  scattered  believers. 

The  concessions  of  Romanists  on  this  point  are  not  less  decisive. 
They  teach  that  when  Antichrist  shall  come,  all  public  worship  of  God 
shall  be  interdicted ;  all  Christian  temples  shall  be  occupied  by  heretics 
and  idolaters,  the  faithful  be  dispersed  and  hidden  from  the  sight  of 
men  in  caves  and  dens  of  the  earth.  This  is  precisely  what  Protestants 
say  happened  before  the  Reformation.  The  pure  worship  of  God  was 
everywhere  forbidden;  idolatrous  services  were  universally  introduced; 
the  true  children  of  God  persecuted  and  driven  into  the  mountains  or 
caves ;  false  doctrine  was  everywhere  professed,  and  the  confession  of 
the  truth  was  everywhere  interdicted.  Both  parties  agree  as  to  what 
are  the  consequences  of  the  coming  of  the  man  of  sin.  The  only  differ- 
ence is  that  Protestants  say  he  has  come  already,  and  Romanists  say  his 
coming  is  still  future.  But  if  the  promise  of  Christ  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  never  prevail  against  his  Church,  consists  with  this  general 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  CHUECH.  85 

apostasy  in  the  future,  it  may  consist  witla  it  in  the  past.  If  the  Church 
hereafter  is  to  be  hidden  from  view  and  continued  in  scattered  believers, 
it  may  have  been  thus  continued  in  times  past.  Romanists  and  Angli- 
cans spurn  with  contempt  the  idea  that  the  Lollards  were  the  true  Church 
in  England,  and  yet  they  admit  that  Avhen  Antichrist  shall  come,  the 
faithful  will  be  reduced  to  the  same,  or  even  to  a  worse  relative  posi- 
tion. That  is,  they  admit  the  external  visible  Church  may  become 
utterly  apostate.  Thus  Bellarmin  says :  "  Cerium  est,  Antichristi 
persecutionem  fore  gravissimam  et  notissimam  ita  ut  cessant  omnes  pub- 
licce  religlonis  ceremonice  et  sacrifida.  .  .  ,  Antichristus  interdicturus  est 
omnem  divinum  cultum,  qui  in  ecclesiis  Christicmorum  exercetur.'"  * 
Stapleton  says :  "  Pelli  sane  poterit  in  desertum  eedesia  regnante  Anti- 
christo,  et  illo  vxomento  temporis  in  deserto,  id  est,  in  locis  abditis,  in 
speluncis,  in  latibidis,  quo  sancti  se  recipient,  non  incommode  quccretur 
ecclesia."  f  During  the  reign  of  Antichrist,  according  to  the  notes  to 
the  Romish  version  of  the  New  Testament,  2  Thess.  ii.  "  The  external 
state  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  the  public  intercourse  of  the  faithful 
with  it,  may  cease ;  yet  the  due  honour  and  obedience  towards  the 
Romish  see,  and  the  communion  of  heart  with  it,  and  the  secret  prac- 
tice of  that  communion,  and  the  open  confession  thereof,  if  the  occasion 
require,  shall  not  cease."  Again,  in  verse  4,  it  is  said:  "The  great 
Antichrist,  who  must  come  towards  the  world's  end,  shall  abolish  all 
other  religions,  true  and  false  ;  and  put  down  the  blessed  sacrament  of 
the  altar,  wherein  consisteth  principally  the  worship  of  the  true  God, 
and  also  all  idols  of  the  Gentiles."  "  The  oblation  of  Christ's  blood," 
it  is  said,  "  is  to  be  abolished  among  all  the  nations  and  Churches 
in  the  world." 

These  passages  admit  that  as  great  an  apostasy  as  Protestants  have 
ever  asserted  has  occurred.  The  public  exercise  and  profession  of  the 
true  faith  is  every^vhere  to  cease ;  idolatry,  or  the  worship  of  Anti- 
christ, is  to  be  set  up  in  every  Church  in  the  world  ;  the  only  commu- 
nion of  the  faithful  is  to  be  in  the  heart  and  in  secret ;  believers  are  to 
be  scattered  and  hidden  from  the  sight  of  men.  Romanists,  therefore, 
although  the  admission  is  perfectly  suicidal,  are  constrained  to  admit 
that  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church  does  not  involve  the  continuance  of 
an  external  visible  society,  professing  the  true  faith,  and  subject  to 
lawful  pastors.  They  give  up,  so  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned,  all 
their  objections  to  the  Protestant  doctrine,  that  the  true  Church  was 
perpetuated  during  the  Romish  apostasy,  in  scattered  believers  and 
witnesses  of  the  truth. 

8.  The  last  proposition  to  be  sustained,  in  vindicating  the  Protestant 

*Eom.  Pontiff,  lib.  iii.  c.  7.  t  Princip.  Doctrin.  cap.  2. 


86  CHURCH  POLITY. 

I  doctrine,  is  included  in  what  has  already  been  said.  The  Church  is 
perj^etual ;  but  as  its  perpetuity  does  not  secure  the  continued  existence 
or  fidelity  of  any  particular  Church;  not  the  preservation  of  the 
Church  catholic  from  all  error  in  matters  of  faith ;  nor  even  the  pre- 

1    servation  of  the  whole  visible  Church  as  an   organized  body,  from 

j    apostasy — the  only  sense  in  which  the  Church  is  necessarily  perpetual, 

'    is  in  the  continued  existence  of  those  who  profess  the  true  faith,  or  the 

I   essential  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures. 

r  The  perpetuity  of  the  Church  in  this  sense  is  secured,  1.  By  the 
promises  made  to  Christ,  that  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul, 
(Isa.  liii. ;)  that  he  should  have  a  seed  to  serve  him  as  long  as  sun  or 
moon  endured,  (Ps.  Ixxii. ;)  that  his  kingdom  was  to  be  an  ever- 
lasting kingdom,  as  foretold  by  all  the  prophets.  2.  By  the  pro- 
mises made  by  Christ,  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail 
against  his  Church ;  that  he  would  be  with  his  people  to  the  end 
of  the  world ;  that  he  would  send  them  his  Sj)irit  to  abide  with 
them  for  ever.  3.  By  the  nature  of  the  mediatorial,  office,  Clirist 
is  the  perpetual  teacher,  priest,  and  ruler  of  his  people.  He  con- 
tinues to  exercise  the  functions  of  these  several  offices  in  behalf  of 
his  Church  on  earth ;  and  therefore  the  Church  cannot  fail  so  long  as 
Christ  lives  :  "  If  I  live,"  he  says,  "  ye  shall  live  also."  4.  The  testi- 
mony of  history  is  no  less  decisive.  It  is  true,  it  is  not  the  province  of 
history  to  preserve  a  record  of  the  faith  and  knowledge  of  all  the  indi- 
viduals of  our  race.  The  best  men  are  often  those  of  whom  history 
makes  no  mention.  And  therefore  though  there  were  whole  centu- 
ries during  which  we  could  point  to  no  witnesses  of  the  truth,  it  would 
be  most  unreasonable  to  infer  that  none  such  existed.  The  perpetuity 
of  the  Church  is  more  a  matter  of  faith,  than  a  matter  of  sight ;  and 
yet  the  evidence  is  abundant  that  pious  men,  the  children  of  God, 
and  the  worshii^pers  of  Christ,  have  existed  in  all  ages  of  the  world. 
There  is  not  a  period  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world,  and  especially 
of  the  world  suace  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  docs  not  in  its 
literature  retain  the  impress  of  devout  minds.  The  hymns  and 
prayers  of  the  Church  in  themselves  afford  abundant  evidence  of  its 

.  continued  vitality.  The  history  of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome  has  been  in 
great  measure  a  history  of  the  persecution  of  those  who  denied  her 
errors,  and  protested  against  her  authority ;  and  therefore  she  has  by 
the  fires  of  martyrdom  revealed  the  existence  of  the  true  Church,  even 
in  the  darkest  ages.  The  Avord  of  God  has  been  read  even  in  the 
most  apostate  Churches ;  the  Psalter,  the  Creed,  and  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, have  always  been  included  in  the  services  of  the  most  cor- 
rupt Churches  ;  so  that  in  every  age  there  has  been  a  public  profession 
of  the  truth,  in  which  some  sincere  hearts  have  joined. 


PEEPETUITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  87 

This  is  not  a  point  wliicli  needs  to  be  proved,  as  all  Christians  are 
herein  agreed.  If,  however,  the  Church  is  perpetual,  it  follows  that 
everything  necessary  to  its  preservation  and  extension  must  also  be 
perpetual.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  word,  sacraments,  and 
the  ministry,  are  the  divinely  appointed  means  for  that  purpose  ;  and 
on  this  ground  we  may  be  assured,  prior  to  any  testimony  from  his- 
tory, that  these  means  have  never  failed,  and  never  shall  fail.  The 
word  of  God  has  never  perished.  The  books  written  by  Moses  and 
the  prophets  are  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Church.  The  writings  of  the 
apostles  have  been  preserved  in  their  integrity,  and  are  now  translated 
into  all  the  important  languages  of  the  globe.  It  is  impossible  that 
they  should  perish.  Their  sotind  has  gone  into  all  the  earth,  and'  their 
words  unto  the  ends  of  the  world.  So  too  with  the  sa("raments.  There 
is  no  pretence  that  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  ever  ceased  to  be  administered  agreeably  to 
the  divine  command.  And  the  Spirit  of  God  has  never  failed  to  call 
men  to  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  duly  to  authenticate  their  voca- 
tion. Whether  there  has  been  a  regular  succession  of  ordinations,  is  a 
small  matter.  Ordination  confers  neither  grace  nor  office.  It  is  the 
solemn  recognition  of  the  vocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  may  be 
effectually  demonstrated  to  the  Church  in  other  ways.  The  call  of 
Farel  and  of  Bunyan  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  though  unordained 
by  man,  (if  such  were  the  fact,)  is  abundantly  more  evident  than  that 
of  nine-tenths  of  the  prelates  of  their  day.  In  perpetuating  his 
Church,  God  has  therefore  perpetuated  his  word,  sacraments,  and  min- 
istry, and  we  have  his  assurance  that  they  shall  continue  to  the  end. 

On  the  principles  above  stated,  it  is  easy  to  answer  the  question  so 
often  put  to  Protestants  by  Romanists,  "  Where  was  your  Church  before 
the  time  of  Luther?"  Just  where  it  was  after  Luther.  TJbi  vera  fides 
erat,  ihl  ecclesia  erat.  The  visible  Church  among  the  Jews  had  sunk 
into  idolatry  before  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  That  pious  king  cast  down 
the  idols,  and  restored  the  pure  worship  of  God.  Did  that  destroy  the 
Church  ?  The  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem  was  long  burdened  with 
Jewish  rites.  When  they  were  cast  aside,  did  the  Church  cease  to  exist  ? 
The  Church  in  Germany  and  England  had  become  corrupted  by  false 
doctrines,  and  by  idolatrous  and  superstitious  ceremonies.  Did  casting 
away  these  corruptions  destroy  the  Church  in  those  lands?  Does  a 
man  cease  to  be  a  man,  when  he  washes  himself? 

Or,  if  Bellarmin  and  Mr.  Palmer  may  say  that  the  Church  was 
continued  during  the  Arian  apostasy  in  the  scattered  professors  of  the 
true  faith,  why  may  not  Protestants  say  that  it  was  continued  in  the 
same  way  during  the  Romish  apostasy  ?  If  the  Jewish  Church  existed 
when  idolatry  prevailed  all  over  Judea,  why  may  not  the  Christian 


88  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

Church  have  continued  when  image  worship  prevailed  all  over  Europe? 
Truth  alone  is  consistent  with  itself.  The  Protestant  doctrine  that  the 
true  Church  consists  of  true  believers,  and  the  visible  Church  of  pro- 
fessed believers,  Avhether  they  be  many  or  few,  organized  or  dispersed, 
alone  accords  with  the  facts  which  Romanists  and  Protestants  are  alike 
forced  to  acknowledge.  And  that  doctrine  affords  a  ready  answer  to 
all  objections  derived  from  the  absence  of  any  conspicuous  organization 
professing  the  true  faith  and  worshipping  God  in  accordance  with  his 
word.  Admitting,  therefore,  that  such  witnesses  of  the  truth  as  the 
Albigenses,  Waldenses,  and  Bohemian  brethren,  do  not  form  an  un- 
broken succession  of  the  visible  Church,  the  doctrine  that  the  Church 
is  perpetual  is  none  the  less  certain,  and  none  the  less  consistent  with 
Protestant  principles.  A  man  must  be  a  Romanist  in  order  to  feel  the 
force  of  the  arguments  of  Romanists.  He  must  believe  the  Church  to 
be  a  visible  society  subject  to  the  Pope,  before  he  can  be  puzzled  by  the 
question.  Where  was  the  Church  before  the  Reformation  ? 

In  like  manner,  if  the  above  principles  be  correct,  it  is  easy  to  see 
~~  that  the  charge  of  schism  cannot  rest  against  Protestants.  Schism  is 
;  either  separation,  without  just  cause,  from  the  true  Chui'ch,  or  the  re- 
/  fusing  to  commune  with  those  who  are  really  the  children  of  God.  If 
the  Church  consists  of  true  believers,  the  Protestants  did  not  withdraw 
from  the  fellowship  of  the  Church;  neither  did  they  refuse  to  admit 
true  believers  to  their  communion.  They  did  not  form  a  new  Church  ; 
they  simply  reformed  the  old.  The  same  body  which  owned  Jesus 
Christ  as  Lord,  and  professed  his  gospel  from  the  beginning,  continued 
to  worship  him  and  to  confess  his  truth  after  the  Reformation,  without 
any  solution  in  the  continuity  of  its  being.  The  fire  which  sweeps  over 
the  prairie  may  seem  to  destroy  everything,  but  the  verdure  which  soon 
clothes  the  fields  with  new  life  and  beauty  is  the  legitimate  product  of 
the  life  that  preceded  it.  So  the  Church,  although  corruj)tion  or  per- 
secution may  divest  it  of  all  visible  indications  of  life,  soon  puts  forth 
new  flowers  and  produces  new  fruit,  without  any  real  discontinuance  of 
its  life.  The  only  schismatics  in  the  case  are  the  Romanists,  who  de- 
nounce and  excommunicate  the  Protestants  because  they  profess  the 
truth. 


91 

nd 


CHAPTER    V. 

PRINCIPLES   OF   CHURCH   TTNION.    [*] 

In  tlie  January  number  of  this  journal,  we  published  an  article  from 
the  pen  of  a  respected  contributor,  advocating  the  confederation  of  the 
various  Presbyterian  bodies  in  this  country,  of  which  there  are  at  least 
eight  or  ten  distinct  organizations.  That  article  presented  in  a  clear 
light  the  serious  evils  which  flow  from  this  multiplicity  of  Presbyterian 
bodies.  Not  only  the  evils  of  sectarian  jealousy  and  rivalry,  but  the 
enormous  waste  which  it  incurs  of  men,  labour,  and  money.  It  did  not 
propose  an  amalgamation  of  all  these  independent  organizations,  but 
suggested  that  while  each  should  retain  its  own  separate  being,  its 
order,  discipline,  and  usages,  the  possession  and  control  of  its  own 
property  and  institutions,  all  should  be  subject  to  one  general  synod, 
for  the  decision  of  matters  of  dispute,  and  the  conduct  of  missionary 
and  other  benevolent  operations,  in  which  all  Calvinistic  Presbyterians 
can,  Avithout  the  sacrifice  of  principle,  combine.  The  advantages  of 
this  plan  are  obvious,  in  the  promotion  of  efficiency,  in  the  consolida- 
tion of  efforts,  in  the  economy  of  men  and  means,  and  in  the  prevention 
of  unseemly  rivalry  and  interference.  But  we  must  take  men  and 
Churches  as  they  are.  Those  who  are  liberal,  and,  shall  we  say,  enlight- 
ened enough,  thus  to  codperate,  may  be  persuaded  into  such  an  union. 
But  if  some  Presbyterians  believe  that  it  is  sinful  to  sing  "Watts's  hymns, 
and  that  they  would  be  false  to  their  "  testimony  "  and  principles  even 
to  commune  with  those  who  use  such  hymns  in  the  worship  of  God  ; 
what  can  be  done  ?  We  cannot  force  them  to  think  otherwise,  and 
while  they  retain  their  peculiar  views  they  are  doomed  to  isolation. 


All  Protestants  agree  that  the  Church  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  one. 
There  is  one  fold,  one  kingdom,  one  family,  oqe  body.  They  all  agree 
that  Christ  is  the  centre  of  this  unity.  Believers  are  one  body  in 
Christ  Jesus ;  that  is,  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  him.     The  bond  of 

[*  From  article  entitled,  "  Principles  of  Church  'Union,  and  Reunion  of  Old  and 
New  School  Presbyterians."     Princeton  Jteview,  1865,  p.  272.] 

89 


88  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Chs  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  apart  from  the  eternal 
Tederal  union  constituted  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  is  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  By  one  Spirit  we  are  baptized  into  or 
constituted  one  body.  That  Spirit  working  faith  in  us,  does  thereby 
unite  us  to  Christ  in  our  effectual  calling. 

It  follows  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  the  principle 
of  unity,  or  the  the  bond  which  unites  all  believers  to  each  other,  and 
all  to  Christ,  that  all  the  legitimate  manifestations  of  this  unity  must 
be  referable  to  the  Spirit's  presence.  That  is,  they  must  be  his  fruits, 
jjroduced  by  his  influence  on  the  hearts  of  his  people.  As  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  teacher — as  he  dwells  in  believers  as  an  unction  from  the 
Holy  One,  which,  as  the  apostle  says,  (1  John  ii.  27,)  teaches  them  all 
things,  so  that  they  need  not  that  any  man  teach  them,  it  follows  that 
all  true  Christians  agree  in  faith.  They  have  one  faith,  as  they  have 
one  Lord  and  one  baptism.  If  they  were  perfect,  that  is,  if  they 
perfectly  submitted  to  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  by  his  word  and  by 
his  inward  influence,  this  agreement  in  matters  of  faith  would  be 
perfect.  But  as  this  is  not  the  case,  as  imperfection  attaches  to  every- 
thing human  in  this  life,  the  unity  of  faith  among  believers  is  also 
imperfect.  Nevertheless  it  is  real.  It  is  far  greater  than  would  be 
inferred  from  the  contentions  of  theologians,  and  it  includes  everything 
essential  to  Christianity.  That  there  is  one  God ;  that  the  Godhead 
subsists  in  three  persons,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  that  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God  assumed  our  nature,  was  born  of  a  woman,  and 
suffered  and  died  for  our  salvation;  that  He  is  the  only  Saviour  of 
men ;  that  it  is  through  his  merit  and  grace  men  are  delivered  from 
the  condemnation  and  power  of  sin ;  that  all  men  being  sinners,  need 
this,  salvation ;  that  it  is  only  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
sinners  are  made  partakers  of  the  redemption  of  Christ ;  that  those 
who  experience  this  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  are  united  to 
Christ,  and  they  only,  are  made  partakers  of  eternal  life — these  are 
doctrines  which  enter  into  the  faith  of  all  Christian  Churches,  and  of 
all  true  believers.  As  it  is  not  for  us  to  say  what  is  the  lowest  degree 
of  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation,  so  it  is  not  for  us  to  determine, 
with  precision  and  confidence,  what  degree  of  aberration  from  the 
common  faith  of  Christians  forfeits  the  communion  of  saints.  We 
know  indeed  that  those  who  deny  the  Son,  deny  the  Father  also,  and 
that  if  any  man  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  born  of  God. 

2.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  only  a  teacher  but  a  sanctifier.  All  those 
in  whom  he  dwells  are  more  or  less  renewed  after  the  image  of  God, 
and  consequently  they  all  agree  in  their  religious  experience.  ,  The 
Spirit  convinces  all  of  sin,  i.  e.,  of  guilt,  moral  pollution,  and  help- 
lessness.    He  reveals  to  all  the  righteousness  of  Christ;   i.  e.,  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  CHUECH  UNION.  9I 

righteousness  of  his  claims  to  be  received,  loved,  worshipped,  and 
obeyed,  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  excites 
in  all  in  whom  he  dwells  the  same  holy  affections,  in  greater  or  less 
degrees  of  strength  and  constancy.  True  Christians,  therefore,  of  all 
ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  are  one  in  their  inward  spiritual 
life,  in  its  principles  and  its  characteristic  exercises.  The  prayers,  the 
hymns,  the  confessions  and  thanksgivings,  which  express  the  yearning 
desires  and  outgoings  of  soul  of  one,  suits  all  others.  This  is  a  bond 
of  fellowship  which  unites  in  mystic  union  the  hearts  of  all  people  of 
God,  and  makes  them  one  family  or  household. 

3.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  a  Spirit  of  love,  and  love  is  one  of  the  fruits 
of  his  presence.  The  command  of  Christ  to  his  disciples,  so  often  re- 
peated by  him  and  his  apostles,  is  written  on  the  heart  by  the  Spirit, 
and  becomes  a  controlling  law  in  all  his  people.  This  is  not  mere  benevo- 
lence, nor  philanthropy,  nor  friendship,  nor  any  form  of  natural  affec- 
tion. It  is  a  love  of  the  brethren  because  they  are  brethren.  It  is  a 
love  founded  on  their  character  and  on  their  relation  to  Christ.  It 
extends  therefore  to  all  Christians  without  distinction  of  nation,  or  cul- 
ture, or  ecclesiastical  association.  It  leads  not  only  to  acts  of  kindness, 
but  to  religious  fellowship.  It  expresses  itself  in  the  open  and  cordial 
recognition  of  every  Christian  as  a  Christian,  and  treating  him  accord- 
ingly. We  confess  Christ  when  we  confess  his  followers  to  be  our  breth- 
ren ;  and  it  is  one  form  of  denying  Christ  to  refuse  to  acknowledge  his 
disciples  as  such.  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  them,  ye  did  it  unto  me, 
are  very  comprehensive,  as  well  as  very  solemn  words. 

It  is  thus  that  all  believers  as  individuals  are  one  spiritual  body. 
But  the  union  of  believers  extends  much  farther  than  this.  Man  is  a 
social  being,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  God  is 
an  organizing  principle.  As  men,  in  virtue  of  their  natural  consti- 
tution, form  themselves  into  families,  tribes,  and  nations,  united  not 
only  by  community  of  nature  and  of  interests,  but  by  external  organic 
laws  and  institutions ;  so  believers  in  Christ,  in  virtue  of  their  spiritual 
nature,  or  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  principle  of 
spiritual  life,  form  themselves  into  societies  for  the  propagation  and 
culture  of  their  spiritual  nature. 

This  leads  1,  to  their  uniting  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  worship, 
and  the  celebration  of  the  Christian  ordinances.  2.  To  the  institution 
of  church  government,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  injunctions  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  the  exercise  of  mutual  watch  and  care,  or  for  the 
exercise  of  discipline.  It  arises  out  of  the  nature  of  Christianity,  in 
other  words,  it  arises  out  of  the  state  of  mind  produced  in  believers  by 
the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  that  they  should,  under  the  guidance  of 
the  written  word,  adopt  means  of  deciding  on  the  admission  of  members 


92  CHURCH  POLITY. 

to  the  Church,  and  upon  the  exclusion  of  the  unworthy,  as  well  as  for 
the  selection  or  appointment  of  the  officers  necessary  for  their  edifica- 
tion. Thus  individual  or  separate  congregations  are  formed.  The 
natural  principle  of  association  of  such  individual  Churches  is  proximity. 
Those  believers  who  reside  sufficiently  near  each  to  make  it  possible  or 
convenient  for  them  to  meet  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  would  naturally 
unite  for  the  purposes  above  indicated. 

3d.  The  unity  of  the  Church,  however,  continues.  These  separate 
congregations  constitute  one  Church.  First,  because  they  have  the 
same  faith,  and  the  same  Lord.  Secondly,  because  they  are  associated 
on  the  same  terms ;  so  that  a  member  admitted  to  one,  becomes  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  universal ;  and  a  member  excluded  from  one  congre- 
gation is  thereby  excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  all.  It  would  indeed 
be  an  anomaly,  if  the  man  whom  Paul  required  the  Corinthians  to 
excommunicate,  could  by  removing  to  Philippi  be  restored  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  saints.  Thirdly,  because  every  single  congregation  is 
subject  to  the  body  of  other  Churches.  Believers  are  required  by  the 
word,  and  impelled  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  to  be  subject  to 
their  brethren  in  the  Lord.  The  ground  of  this  subjection  is  not  the 
fact  that  they  are  neighbours,  and  therefore  is  not  confined  to  those  with 
whom  they  are  united  in  daily  or  weekly  acts  of  worship.  Nor  does  it 
rest  on  any  contract  or  mutual  covenant,  so  as  to  be  limited  to  those  to 
whom  we  may  agree  to  obey.  It  is  founded  on  the  fact  that  they  are 
brethren;  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  them,  and  therefore  extends 
to  all  the  brethren.  The  doctrine  that  a  Church  is  formed  by  mutual 
covenant,  and  that  its  authority  is  limited  to  those  who  agree  together 
for  mutual  watch  and  care,  is  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity and  the  word  of  God,  as  that  parental  authority  is  founded  on 
a  covenant  between  the  parent  and  the  children.  Children  are  required 
to  obey  their  parents,  because  they  are  parents,  and  not  because  they 
have  covenanted  to  obey  them.  In  like  manner  we  are  required  to 
obey  our  brethren,  because  they  are  brethren;  just  as  we  are  bound  to 
obey  the  wise  and  good,  because  they  are  what  they  are ;  or  as  we  are 
bound  to  obey  reason  and  conscience,  because  they  are  reason  and  con- 
science ;  or  God,  because  he  is  God.  Mutual  covenants  as  the  ground 
and  limitation  of  church  authority,  and  the  "  social  compact "  as  the 
ground  of  civil  government,  are  alike  anti-scriptural.  The  Church 
therefore  remains  one  body,  not  only  spiritually,  but  outwardly.  Each 
individual  congregation  is  a  member  of  an  organic  whole,  as  the  several 
members  of  the  human  body  are  united  not  only  by  the  inward  prin- 
ciple of  life  common  to  them  all,  but  in  external  relation  and  mutual 
dependence.  The  eye  cannot  say  to  the  ear,  nor  the  hand  to  the  foot, 
"  thou  art  not  of  the  body." 


PEINCIPLES  OF  CHUECH  UNION.  93 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  Church  in  any  one  town 
or  city  would  be  subject  to  those  in  its  immediate  vicinity,  and  those 
again  to  the  Churches  in  a  larger  circle,  and  these  to  the  Church  univer- 
sal. Thus  by  an  inward  law,  provincial  and  national  Churches  or 
ecclesiastical  organizations,  would  be  formed,  all  inwardly  and  out- 
wardly connected,  and  all  subject  to  the  Church  as  a  whole.  The  rep- 
resentative principle  which  pervades  the  Bible,  and  which  has  its 
foundation  in  the  nature  of  man,  is  also  founded  in  the  nature  of  the 
Church,  and  is  necessarily  involved  in  her  organization.  As  it  is  phy- 
sically impossible  that  all  the  people  should  assemble  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  government  and  discipline,  it  is  a  matter  of  necessity  that 
the  power  of  the  Church  should  be  exercised  through  its  properly  ap- 
pointed representatives — so  that  this  organic  outward  union  of  the 
Church,  as  the  expression  of  its  inward  spiritual  unity,  becomes  feasible, 
and  has  to  a  large  extent  been  actual. 

It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  such  is  the  normal  or  ideal  state  of  the 
Church.  This  is  the  form  which  it  would  in  fact  have  assumed,  if  it 
had  not  been  for  disturbing  influences.  A  tree  planted  under  favoura- 
ble circumstances  of  soil  and  climate,  and  with  free  scope  on  every  side, 
assumes  its  normal  shape  and  proportions,  and  stands  forth  the  realiza- 
tion of  its  idea.  But  if  the  soil  or  climate  be  uncongenial,  or  if  the 
tree  be  hedged  in,  it  grows  indeed,  but  in  a  distorted  shape,  and  with 
cramped  and  crooked  limbs.  This  has  been  the  actual  history  of  the 
Church.  The  full  and  free  development  of  its  inward  life  has  been  so 
hindered  by  the  imperfection  of  that  life  itself,  and  by  adverse  external 
influences,  that  instead  of  filling  the  earth  with  its  branches,  or  stand- 
ing one  and  symmetrical,  as  a  cedar  of  Lebanon,  or  an  oak  of  Bashan, 
it  is  rent  and  divided,  and  her  members  twisted  out  of  their  natural 
shaj^e  and  proportions. 

These  adverse  influences,  although  partly  external,  (geographical 
and  political,)  have  been  principally  from  within.  As  external  union 
is  the  product  and  expression  of  spiritual  unity ;  if  the  latter  be  de- 
fective, the  former  must  be  imperfect.  Christians  have  not  been  so 
united  in  their  views  of  Christian  doctrine  and  order  as  to  render  it 
possible  for  them  all  to  be  joined  in  one  organized  external  body. 
Romanists  (especially  of  the  genuine  ultramontane  school)  assume  that 
Christ  constituted  his  Church  in  the  form  of  an  absolute  monarchy, 
and  appointed  the  bishop  of  Rome  its  head,  and  invested  him  with  ab- 
solute power  to  decide  all  questions  of  doctrine  and  morals,  and  with 
universal  authority  to  exercise  discipline;  making  him,  in  short,  his 
vicar,  with  plenary  power  upon  earth  ;  and  that  the  Church  can  exist 
under  no  other  form,  so  that  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  Pope  is  to 
secede  from  the  Church.     As  no  man  can  be  a  member  of  the  Russian 


94  CHURCH  POLITY. 

empire  and  enjoy  its  privileges,  who  does  not  acknowledge  the  au- 
thority of  the  Czar,  so  no  one  can  be  a  member  of  the  Eomish  Church 
who  does  not  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  This  theory  of 
the  nature  and  organization  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  condition  of 
membership  therein,  of  necessity  separates  those  Avho  adopt  it  from  all 
other  Christians.  If  they  are  right,  all  who  protest  and  refuse  to  ae- 
knowledge  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  their  sovereign  lord,  are  schismatics. 
If  they  are  wrong,  then  the  crime  of  schism  rests  on  them.  In  either 
case,  however,  the  Church  is  divided. 

Prclatists,  on  the  other  hand,  hold  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  apostle- 
ship,  and  assume  that  bishops  are  the  official  successors  of  the  apostles, 
and  ought  to  be  accepted  and  obeyed  as  such.  The  class  of  those  who 
adopt  this  theory  teach  that  the  being  of  the  Church  depends  on  this 
principle.  As  in  the  early  Church  those  only  were  recognized  as 
members  who  received  the  doctrines  and  submitted  to  the  authority  of 
the  apostles,  so  now  those  only  are  in  the  Church  who  yield  like  sub- 
jection to  the  prelates  having  apostolic  succession.  Another  class, 
while  they  do  not  go  to  this  extreme,  still  hold  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
all  Christians  to  adopt  and  submit  to  the  episcopal  organization  of  the 
Church,  and  to  render  canonical  obedience  to  its  prelates. 

Presbyterians  are  fully  persuaded,  from  their  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  the  office  of  the  apostles  was  temporary ;  that  they 
have  no  official  successors,  and  that  presbyters  are  the  highest  per- 
manent officers  of  the  Church,  according  to  its  original  design  and 
institution.  They  therefore  cannot  conscientiously  submit  to  the 
claims  of  either  papal  or  prelatical  authority,  and  are  necessitated 
to  organize  an  external  Church  for  themselves ;  or  rather,  as  they 
believe,  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  the  original  and  divinely  ap- 
pointed mode  of  organization. 

Independents  believe  that  a  Church  is  a  company  of  believers  united 
by  mutual  covenant  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  worship  and  disci- 
pline, and  is  complete  in  itself,  subject  to  no  ecclesiastical  authority  but 
that  of  its  own  members.  Holding  these  views  they  cannot  submit 
to  pope,  prelates,  or  presbyteries.  Thus  we  have  the  external  Church 
of  necessity  divided  into  three  independent,  antagonistic  bodies.  The 
evil,  however,  has  not  stopped  here. 

'  Baptists  assume  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism;  that  baptism 
is  necessary  to  membership  in  the  visible  Church ;  and  that  adult 
believers  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  that  Christian  ordinance. 
Hence  they  cannot  recognize  any  persons  as  members  of  the  Church 
who  were  either  baptized  in  infancy,  or  to  whom  the  rite  was  ad- 
ministered otherwise  than  by  immersion. .  They  are  thus  separated  (at 
least  externally)  from  the  great  body  of  Christians.     Less  diversities 


PRINCIPLES  OF  CnURCH  UNIOX.  95 

of  opinion  than  any  of  tlie  above  have  led  to  the  multiplication  of 
sects.  Some  Presbyterians,  believing  that  the  civil  magistrate  is 
clothed  with  the  power  to  raaiutain  the  purity  of  the  Church,  will  not 
recognize  the  authority  of  any  magistrate  who  has  not  bound  himself 
by  covenant  to  exercise  his  power  to  sustain  the  Church  according  to 
their  views  of  gospel  doctrine  and  order.  These  Covenanters,  there- 
fore, separate  from  other  Presbyterians  who  do  not  agree  with  them  in 
this  fundamental  principle.  Otherwise  they  would  be  unfaithful,  as 
they  believe,  to  the  testimony  for  the  truth  which  they  are  bound 
to  bear. 

Others  again  believe  that  the  Book  of  Psalms  was  divinely  ap- 
pointed to  be  used  in  public  worship,  and  that  the  use  of  hymns 
■svritten  by  uninspired  men  in  the  service  of  God  is  a  violation  of  his 
commands.  With  such  a  belief  they  cannot  unite  in  worship  or  com- 
munion with  those  who  differ  from  them  in  this  matter.  Thus  the  evil 
has  gone  on  increasing  until  the  Church  is  split  into  sects  and  indepen- 
dentcommunions  almost  without  number.  Nevertheless,  the  existence 
of  such  divisions  is  the  less  of  two  evils.  When  men  differ,  it  is  better 
to  avow  their  diversity  of  opinion  or  faith,  than  to  pretend  to  agree,  or 
to  force  discordant  elements  in  a  formal  uncongenial  union. 

It  is  clear  from  the  history  of  the  Church,  that  diversity  as  to  forms 
of  Church  government,  or  matters  connected  with  worship  and  dis- 
cipline, more  than  differences  about  doctrine,  has  been  the  cause  of 
existing  divisions  of  the  Church.  Many  Romanists,  Episcopalians, 
and  all  Presbyterians  (with  few  exceptions)  have  been,  and  are,  Au- 
gustinian  in  doctrine.  In  the  Komish  Church,  during  all  the  middle 
ages,  Augustinians,  Pelaginns,  and  Semi-Pelagians  were  included  in 
her  communion.  The  sume  diversity  notoriously  exists  in  the  Church 
of  England,  and  in  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  this  country  at  the 
present  day.  These  Churches  are  one,  not  in  doctrine,  but  in  virtue 
of  tlieir  external  organization,  and  subjection  to  one  and  the  same  gov- 
erning body.  In  the  Romish  Church  the  principle  or  centre  of  union 
is  the  Pope ;  in  the  Church  of  England  the  king  in  council ;  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  the  General  Con- 
vention. The  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  subject  to  the  same  General 
Assembly,  constitute  one  Church ;  those  subject  to  another  Assembly 
constitute  another.  And  so  it  is  in  the  United  States.  Churches  there- 
fore may  agree  in  their  standards  of  doctrine,  in  their  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  mode  of  worship,  and  yet  be  separate,  independent  bodies, 

The  existence  of  denominational  Churches  being  unavoidable  in  the 
present  imperfect  state  of  inward  spiritual  unity  among  Christians,  it 
becomes  important  to  determine  their  relative  duties.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  their  duty  to  combine  or  unite  in  one  body  (so  far  as 


96  CHURCH  POLITY. 

geographical  and  political  considerations  will  permit),  wherever  and 
whenever  the  grounds  of  their  separation  are  inadequate  and  unscrip- 
tural.  They  are  not  bound  to  unite  when  the  differences  between  them 
are  such  as  to  prevent  harmonious  action ;  but  where  the  points  in 
which  they  differ  are  either  such  as  the  Scriptures  do  not  determine,  or 
which  are  of  minor  importance,  it  is  obviously  wrong  that  all  the  evils 
arising  from  the  multiplication  of  sects  should  for  the  sake  of  these 
subordinate  matters  be  continued.  It  is  clearly  impossible  that 
Romanists  and  Protestants  should  be  united  in  the  same  ecclesiastical 
organization.  It  is  no  less  impossible  that  anything  more  than  a 
federal  union,  such  as  may  exist  between  independent  nations,  can  be 
formed  between  Prelatists  and  Presbyterians,  between  Baptists  and 
Psedobaptists,  between  Congregationalists  and  any  other  denomination 
recognizing  the  authority  of  Church  courts.  The  principles  con- 
scientiously adopted  by  these  different  bodies  are  not  only  different,  but 
antagonistic  and  incompatible.  Those  who  hold  them  can  no  more 
form  one  Church  than  despotism  and  democracy  can  be  united  in  the 
constitution  of  the  same  state.  If  by  divine  right  all  authority  vests 
in  the  king,  it  cannot  vest  in  the  people.  The  advocates  of  these 
opposite  theories  therefore  cannot  unite  in  one  form  of  government. 
It  is  no  less  obvious  that  if  ecclesiastical  power  vests  in  one  man — the 
bishop — it  cannot  vest  in  a  jiresbytery.  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians 
therefore  cannot  unite.  The  latter  deny  the  right  of  the  bishop  to  the 
prerogatives  which  he  claims ;  and  the  former  deny  the  authority  of 
the  presbytery  which  it  assumes.  The  same  thing  is  equally  plain  of 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists.  The  former  regard  themselves 
as  bound  by  the  decisions  of  sessions  and  presbyteries;  the  latter 
refuse  to  recognize  the  right  of  Church  coiMs  to  exercise  discipline 
or  government.  So  long,  therefore,  as  such  differences  exist  among 
Christians,  it  is  plain  that  Romanists,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians, 
and  Congregationalists,  must  form  separate  and  independent  bodies. 

Differences  as  to  doctrine  do  not  form  such  insuperable  barriers  to 
Church  union  as  diversity  of  opinion  respecting  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment. The  creed  of  a  Church  may  be  so  general,  embracing  ordy  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  such  as  can  be  professed  with  a 
good  conscience  by  all  true  Christians,  and  thus  ministers  and  members 
who  differ  widely  within  those  limits  may  unite  in  one  ecclesiastical 
organization.  It  is  notorious  that  great  differences  of  doctrine  prevail 
in  all  large  Churches,  as  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  in  this  country  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  in  a  less 
degree,  perhaps,  among  Presbyterians.  Much  as  to  this  point  depends 
on  the  standards  of  the  Church.  Those  standards  may  be  so  strict  aud 
so  extended  as  to  exclude  all  but  Calvinists,  or  all  but  Arminians,  as 


PKINCIPLES  OF  CHUECH  UNION.  97 

is  the  case  with  the  Wesley ans.  It  is  a  question  of  delicacy  and  diffi- 
culty how  minute  a  confession  of  faith  for  an  extended  organization 
should  be  made.  It  may  be  too  concise  and  latitudinarian,  or  it  may 
be  too  minute  and  extended,  requiring  a  degree  of  unanimity  greater 
than  is  necessary,  and  greater  than  is  attainable.  Fidelity  and  har- 
mony, however,  both  demand  that  the  requirements  of  the  standards, 
whatever  they  may  be,  should  be  sincerely  adopted  and  enforced  so  far 
as  every  thing  essential  to  their  integrity  is  concerned. 

But  secondly,  when  union  between  different  denominations  is  imprac- 
ticable or  undesirable,  they  have  very  important  duties  resting  upon 
them  in  relation  to  each  other.  1.  The  first  and  most  comprehensive 
of  these  duties  is  mutual  recognition.  By  this  is  meant  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  their  members  as  Christian  brethren,  and  of  the  denomi- 
nations or  bodies  themselves  as  Christian  Churches.  It  is  a  great 
ofience  against  Christian  charity,  and  a  direct  violation  of  the  command 
of  Christ,  to  refuse  to  receive  as  our  brethren  those  whom  Christ 
receives  as  his  disciples.  It  will  not  avail  as  an  excuse  for  such  repu- 
diation of  brotherhood,  to  say  that  others  do  not  walk  with  us ;  that 
they  do  not  adopt  the  same  form  of  government,  are  not  subject  to  the 
same  bishops  or  Church  courts ;  or  that  they  do  not  unite  with  us  in  the 
same  testimony  as  to  non-essential  matters ;  or  do  not  agree  with  us  in 
the  same  mode  of  worship.  We  might  as  well  refuse  to  recognize  a 
man  as  a  fellow-creature  because  he  was  a  monarchist  and  not  a  republi- 
can, a  European  and  not  an  American,  or  an  African  and  not  a  Cau- 
casian. This  is  no  small  matter.  Those  who  refuse  to  recognize 
Christians  as  Christians,  sin  against  Christ  and  commit  an  offence 
which  is  severely  denounced  in  the  word  of  God.  The  same  principle 
applies  to  Churches.  To  refuse  to  recognize  as  a  Church  of  Christ  any 
body  of  associated  believers  united  for  the  purposes  of  worship  and  dis- 
cipline, can  be  justified  only  on  the  ground  that  some  particular  form 
of  organization  has  by  Divine  authority  been  made  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  Church.  And  if  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church,  it  must  be  essential  to  the  existence  of  piety  and  to  the  presence 
and  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Ubi  Spiritus  Sanctus  ibi  Ecclesia 
is  a  principle  founded  upon  the  Scriptures,  and  held  sacred  by  evangeli- 
cal Christians  in  all  ages.  It  was  the  legend  on  the  banner  which  they 
raised  in  all  their  conflicts  with  Papists  and  High  Churchmen  from  the 
beginning.  A  body  of  Christians,  therefore,  professing  the  true  faith, 
and  united  for  the  purpose  of  worship  and  discipline,  no  matter  how 
externally  organized,  is  a  Church  which  other  Christians  are  bound  to 
recognize  as  such,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  a  particular  mode  of 
organization  is  in  fact,  and  by  Divine  command,  essential  to  the  exis- 
tence of  the  Church. 
7 


98  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

2,  It  is  included  in  the  acknowledgment  that  a  body  of  Christians  is 
a  Church  of  Christ,  that  we  should  commune  with  its  members  in  public 
worship  aud  in  the  sacraments,  and  allow  them  to  commune  with  us. 
This  follows  from  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  Church ;  from  its  having 
the  same  faith  and  the  same  Lord  and  God,  and  from  the  conditions  of 
Church  membership  beinj, '  the  same  for  all  Churches.  A  member  'of 
the  Church  at  Jerusalem  was  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church 
of  Antioch.  If  he  was  a  Christian  in  one  place,  he  was  no  less  a  Chris- 
tian in  another,  and  the  rights  of  a  Christian  belonged  to  him  wherever 
he  went.  It  is  obvious  that  this  principle,  although  true  in  itself,  is 
limited  in  its  practical  application.  There  may  be  something  in  the 
mode  of  conducting  public  worship  or  in  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  which  hurts  the  consciences  of  other  Christians,  and  pre- 
vents this  freedom  of  communion  in  Church  ordinances.  If  a  Church 
requires  all  who  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  receive  the  elements 
upon  their  knees,  should  any  man  conscientiously  believe  that  this 
posture  implies  the  worship  of  the  consecrated  bread,  he  cannot  join  in 
the  service ;  or  if  a  Church  is  so  unfaithful  as  to  admit  to  its  fellowship 
those  whom  the  law  of  Christ  requires  should  be  excluded,  other 
Churches  are  not  bound  to  receive  them  into  fellowship.  These  and 
similar  limitations  do  not  invalidate  the  principle.  It  remains  the 
plain  duty  of  all  Christian  Churches  to  recognize  each  other  as 
Churches,  and  hold  intercourse  one  with  another  as  such.  And  it  is 
also  their  duty  to  make  nothing  essential  either  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church  or  to  Church  fellowship,  which  the  word  of  God  does  not 
declare  to  be  essential. 

3.  A  third  duty  resting  on  different  Churches  or  denominations,  is 
to  recognize  the  validity  of  each  other's  acts  of  discipline.  If  the 
Church,  notwithstanding  its  division  into  sects,  is  still  one ;  if  the  legiti- 
mate terms  of  membership  are  the  same  in  all ;  and  if  the  lawful 
grounds  of  exclusion  are  also  the  same,  then  it  follows  that  a  man  ex- 
cluded from  one  Church  should  be  excluded  from  all  other  Churches. 
The  meaning  of  the  act  of  suspension  or  excommunication  is,  that  the 
subject  of  censure  is  unworthy  of  Christian  fellowship.  If  this  be  true 
in  one  place,  it  is  true  in  every  place.  Civil  tribunals  act  upon  this 
principle.  Not  only  do  the  courts  of  the  same  state  respect  the  deci- 
sions of  co-ordinate  courts;  but  the  judicial  decisions  of  one  state  are 
held  valid  in  other  states,  until  just  reason  can  be  shown  to  the  con- 
trary. The  rule  is  the  same  with  regard  to  acts  of  Church  discipline. 
The  right  to  exercise  discipline  is  to  be  acknowledged.  The  propriety 
and  justice  of  the  particular  acts  of  discipline  are  to  be  presumed  and 
acted  upon.  If  clear  evidence  be  afforded  that  those  acts  were  unau- 
thorized by  the  law  of  Christ,  or  manifestly  unjust,  other  Churches,  in 


PEIXCIPLE3  OF  CHUECH  UNION.  99 

consistency  with  courtesy  and  Christian  fellowship,  may  disregard 
them.  If  a  Baptist  Church  should  excommunicate  a  member  because 
he  had  his  children  baptized,  no  psedobaptist  Church  could,  on  that 
ground,  refuse  to  receive  him.  Or  if  one  Presbyterian  Church  should 
subject  a  member  to  discipline  because  he  joined  in  acts  of  worship  in 
which  hymns  written  by  uninspired  men  wei  c  sung,  other  Presbyterians 
would  be  free  to  disregard  such  censures. 

4.  The  same  remarks  apply  to  cases  of  ordination.  If  we  are  bound 
to  recognize  a  given  body  as  a  Christian  Church,  we  are  bound  to 
admit  that  it  has  a  right  to  all  the  privileges  and  prerogatives  belong- 
ing to  a  Church.  Among  those  necessary  prerogatives  is  the  right  to 
perpetuate  and  extend  itself,  and  to  appoint  men  to  all  scriptural 
offices  necessary  to  that  purpose.  The  ministry  is  a  divine  institution. 
It  is  appointed  for  the  edification  of  saints  and  for  the  ingathering  of 
those  who  are  without.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  a  Church 
should  have  ministers;  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  that  she  should 
have  the  right  to  ordain.  If  the  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  or  Congre- 
gationalists  are  to  be  recognized  as  Christian  Churches,  their  right  to 
ordain  ministers  cannot  be  legitimately  denied.  It  is  one  thing,  how- 
ever, to  admit  the  right  and  another  to  admit  the  propriety  of  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  exercised.  If  Presbyterians  believe  that  the  pres- 
bytery is  the  organ  by  which  the  Church  signifies  her  conviction  that 
a  man  is  called  by  the  Spirit  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  they  may 
consistently  refuse  to  receive  as  ministers  of  their  own  body  those  who 
have  not  been  presbyterially  ordained.  Or  if  one  presbytery  should 
exercise  its  admitted  right  of  ordination  in  contravention  either  of  the 
laws  of  Christ,  or  of  the  rules  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  other  pres- 
byteries would  not  be  bound  to  receive  such  minister  as  a  member. 
The  Bishop  of  Oxford  ordained  a  man  whom  the  Bishop  of  Chester 
refused  to  allow  to  officiate  in  his  diocese.  This  was  not  schismatical. 
It  was  not  a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  to  ordain  ;  it 
was  only  a  denial  that  he  had  properly  exercised  that  right  in  a  given 
case.  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  that  one  denomination  should  con- 
cern itself  how  other  denominational  Churches  exercise  the  right  of 
appointing  men  to  the  ministry,  provided  it  admit  that  they  possess 
the  right  of  appointment;  and  recognize  those  thus  appointed  as  min- 
isters of  Christ.  It  can  preserve  the  purity  of  its  own  ministry  and 
Churches  without  incurring  the  charge  of  discourtesy  or  schism.  Pres- 
byterians may  recognize  Methodist  preachers  as  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
and  welcome  them  to  their  pulpits,  but  they  cannot  be  expected  to  re- 
ceive them  into  their  own  body  or  make  them  pastors  of  their  own 
Churches.  The  same  of  course  may  be  said  of  Methodists  in  regard  to 
Presbyterians. 


100  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

5.  Another  important  duty  wliich  rests  upon  denominations  recogniz- 
ing each  other  as  Christian  Churches,  is  that  of  non-interference. 
When  one  Church  has  planted  itself  in  a  field  which  it  is  abundantly- 
able  to  cultivate,  it  is  a  breach  of  the  principles  of  unity  for  another 
denomination  to  contend  for  joint-occupation.  This  is  a  great  evil 
and  one  of  constant  occurrence.  It  often  happens  that  one  denoto- 
ination  organizes  a  Church  in  a  village  the  population  of  which 
is  barely  sufficient  for  one  Church,  when  another  starts  a  rival 
Church,  which  can  succeed  only  by  drawing  support  from  the  other. 
When  the  field  is  the  world,  and  so  much  land  remains  unoccupied,  it 
is  a  great  wrong  thus  to  embarrass  the  operations  of  our  fellow- 
Christians,  and  to  burden  the  people  with  the  support  of  two,  three  or 
more  Churches,  where  one  would  do  more  good  than  many. 

6.  Finally,  it  is  obviously  the  duty  of  different  denominations  to 
cultivate  peace.  They  should  avoid  all  the  causes  of  alienation  and 
ill-feeling,  and  do  everything  in  their  power  to  promote  Christian  love 
and  fellowship.  It  is  their  duty,  indeed,  to  maintain  what  they  believe 
to  be  the  truth,  and  endeavour  to  promote  unity  of  faith  ;  but  they  are 
bound  to  abstain  from  mere  rivalry  and  sectarian  conflicts. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

PROVINCE   OF   THE   CHURCH.    [*] 

The  world  is  governed  by  ideas.  The  triteness  of  this  remark  is 
only  a  proof  of  its  importance.  It  is  wonderful  also  how  ideas 
percolate :  how  they  silently  diffuse  themselves,  as  heat,  or  electricity, 
until  they  animate  the  mass  of  society,  and  manifest  themselves  in  the 
most  unexpected  quarters.  They  often  lie  dormant,  as  it  were,  in  the 
public  mind,  until  some  practical  measure,  some  foregone  conclusion 
or  purpose  as  to  a  definite  mode  of  action,  calls  them  into  notice.  If 
they  suit  the  occasion,  if  they  answer  a  cherished  purpose,  and  give  to 
the  intellect  a  satisfactory  reason  for  what  the  will  has  determined 
upon,  they  are  adopted  with  avidity.  The  history  of  every  community 
will  suggest  abundant  illustrations  to  every  reader  of  the  truth  of  this 
remark. 

[*  From  article  on  ''  The,  General  Assembly  ;"  topic,  "  Colonization  and  Theory  oj 
the  Church  ;"  Princeton  Review,  1859,  p.  G07.] 


PROVINCE  OF  THE  CHUECH.  101 

Great  evils  were  long  experienced  in  England  from  Erastianism. 
The  intimate  union  of  the  Church  and  state,  and  the  consequent 
subjection  of  the  former  to  the  latter,  led  to  all  manner  of  corruptions 
and  oppressions.  To  escape  these  evils,  one  class  of  the  Puritans  went  to 
the  opposite  extreme.  They  represented  the  visible  Church  as  a  purely 
spiritual  body,  consisting  of  the  regenerated,  united  by  special  covenant 
for  the  worship  of  God,  and  mutual  watch  and  care.  This  is  Owen's 
idea.  He  says,  believers  are  the  matter  of  the  Church,  and  the 
covenant  is  the  form.  No  one,  therefore,  is  a  member  of  the  Church 
but  one,  who  giving  satisfactory  evidence  of  regeneration,  voluntarily 
and  personally  professes  his  faith,  and  enters  into  a  Church  covenant 
with  a  number  of  fellow-believers.  All  else  are  of  the  world,  in  no 
way  amenable  to  the  Church  or  subject  to  its  control.  The  sole  object 
of  Church  organization  is  the  worship  of  God  and  the  exercise  of 
discipline;  and  consequently  its  sole  prerogative  is  to  provide  for 
divine  worship  and  to  receive  and  exclude  members.  This  leads  to  the 
distinction  between  the  Church  and  the  parish.  The  former  is  the 
covenanted  body  of  believers ;  the  latter,  the  whole  body  of  the  commu- 
nity united  in  the  maintenance  of  the  ordinances  of  religion.  There 
are  two  principles  involved  in  this  theory,  the  one,  that  each  body  of 
believers  united  by  covenant  for  worship  and  discipline  is  a  complete 
Church,  and  independent  of  all  others ;  and  the  other,  that  the  Church 
is  a  purely  spiritual  body  having  for  its  sole  object  the  worship  of  God 
and  the  fellowship  and  purity  of  believers.  The  effects  of  this  theory 
we  see  in  the  progress  of  development  in  New  England.  The  Church, 
there,  is  what  Napoleon's  army  would  be  were  it  disbanded  into  inde- 
pendent companies,  each  acting  by,  and  for  itself;  this  is  the  effect  of 
Independency  ;  or  what  these  countries  would  be,  if  every  village  were 
a  separate  sovereignty.  The  effect  of  the  other  principle,  relating  to 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  Church,  is  utter  inefficiency.  Who  ever 
heard  of  the  Church  saying  or  doing  anything  in  New  England  ?  It  is 
muzzled,  manacled  and  fettered.  It  exists  there  in  spite  of  the  theory, 
in  the  spiritual  union  and  fellowship  of  the  people  of  God,  but  they 
have  no  means  of  organic  action,  and  according  to  the  prevalent 
notion,  no  right  to  act  as  an  organic  whole,  nor  to  act  even  in  its  dis- 
jointed members,  except  for  the  purposes  indicated  above.  If  they  have 
even  to  ordain  a  man  to  the  ministry,  found  a  seminary,  send  out 
missionaries,  or  do  anything  however  intimately  connected  with  Christ's 
kingdom,  they  must  go  out  of  the  Church  organization  to  do  it.  The 
most  desperate  evils  may  prevail  in  the  form  of  heresies  or  immorali- 
ties, the  Church  as  such  can  do  nothing,  and  does  nothing.  We  give 
full  credit  to  the  devotion  of  individual  Christians  in  New  England, 
and  to  the  energy  of  their  combined  action  in  their  voluntary  associa- 


IV 


102  CHURCH  POLITY. 

tions  of  diiferent  kinds.  But  these  are  very  poor  substitutes  for  the 
natural  and  divinely  appointed  organs  of  Church  action.  Experience 
is  teaching  a  sad  lesson  on  this  subject. 

Of  the  two  principles  involved  in  this  form  of  Puritanism,  the  Inde- 
pendent clement  has  had  no  access  to  our  Church.  There  is  no  suscep- 
tibility in  our  system  of  impression  from  that  source.  The  two  systems 
are  antagonistic  and  repellent.  They  are  incapable  of  combination. 
With  regard  to  the  other  element,  however,  relating  to  the  nature  and 
prerogatives  of  the  Church,  the  case  is  far  different.     That  element  has 

i\.  long  been  silently  diffusing  itself  through  our  whole  body.  It  affects 
our  modes  of  thought,  our  expressions,  and  our  ecclesiastical  action. 
"With  us,  in  common  parlance,  the  Church  is  the  body  of  those  who 
profess  to  be  regenerated ;  to  join  the  Church  is  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
table.  Our  Book  declares  that  all  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the 
Church,  and  yet  we  constantly  talk  of  such  persons  joining  the  Church 
when  they  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper.      Personal  and  voluntary  pro- 

A  fession  of  saving  faith  is  regarded  as  the  condition  of  Church  member- 
1  ship.     The  Church  has  no  right  of  discipline  except  over  such  profes- 

'^  sors.  And  now  the  doctrine  is  advanced  by  one  of  the  very  foremost 
men  of  our  whole  communion,  that  the  Church  is  in  such  sense  a  spiri- 
tual body,  that  she  has  no  right  even  to  recommend  a  benevolent  soci- 
/\^  ety.  She  must  confine  herself  to  a  purely  spiritual  vocation.  She 
cannot  denounce  evil  or  patronize  good  out  of  her  pale.  It  is  not  her 
business  to  attend  "  to  the  colonization  of  races,  or  to  the  arrest  of  the 
slave  trade,"  or  to  anything  else  but  the  immediate  spiritual  affairs  of 
men. 

There  is  always  a  half  truth  in  every  error.  It  is  true  that  the 
Church  is  not  of  this  world ;  that  it  is  not  as  such  concerned  in  the 
affairs  of  the  world  ;  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  politics,  commerce, 
or  agriculture,  or  any  secular  enterprise  as  such.  All  this  follows  from 
our  theory  of  the  Church,  as  logically  and  freely  as  from  the  Puritan 
doctrine.  There  is  no  necessity  to  manacle  the  Church  to  keep  her 
hands  off  of  politics. 

'  In  strong  contrast  with  this  whole  Puritan  doctrine  is  that  idea  of  the 
Church  which  is  the  life  of  our  system,  which  has  revealed  itself  in  act 
in  every  period  of  our  history.  It  is,  that  while  the  true  Church,  or 
body  of  Christ,  the  '  Iffpar^X  xarot  nv$ufia,  consists  of  the  true  people  of 
God,  yet  by  divine  ordinance  the  children  of  believers  are  to  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  included  within  its  pale,  and  consecrated  to 
God  in  Baptism,  and  therefore,  in  the  sight  of  men,  all  baptized  per- 
sons, in  the  language  of  our  Book,  are  members  of  the  Church,  and 
under  its  watch  and  care. 

This,  of  course,  as  remarked  above,  does  not  imply  that  they  are  all 


PROVINCE  OF  THE  CHUECH.  103 

to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  any  more  than  that  they  are  to  be 
admitted  to  the  ministry  or  eklership.  God  has  prescribed  the  qualifi- 
cations which  the  Church  is  to  require  of  those  whom  she  receives  to 
full  communion  or  to  office.  Still,  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the 
visible  Church,  until  they  renounce  their  birthright,  or  are  excommuni- 
cated, and  consequently  subject  to  its  government  or  discipline.  This 
body  constitutes  one  whole,  so  that  one  part  is  subject  to  a  larger,  and 
the  larger  to  the  whole.  To  the  Church,  in  this  sense,  is  committed 
not  merely  the  work  of  public  worship  and  exercising  discipline,  not 
simply  or  exclusively  to  exhort  men  to  repentance  and  faith,  but  to 
assert,  maintain,  and  propagate  the  truth.  And  by  the  truth,  is  to  be 
understood  the  word  of  Ggd,  and  all  it  contains,  as  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  This  is  the  great  prerogative  and  duty  of  the  Church.  Her 
divine  commission  is,  "  Go,  teach  all  nations."     From  this  it  follows : 

1.  That  she  has  the  right  to  preach  the  gospel.  This  is  the  first,  the 
most  important,  and  pressing  of  her  duties  ;  and  in  the  discharge  of  this 
duty,  she  ordains  ministers  and  sends  forth  missionaries.  Hence  your 
Boards  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Missions,  and  of  Church  Extension. 

2.  She  has  the  right  to  administer  discipline,  which  is  one  of  the 
divinely  appointed  means  of  preserving  the  truth.  3.  The  right  to 
educate.  If  she  is  to  teach  all  nations,  she  must  train  up  teachers ;  she 
must  prepare  the  minds  of  men  to  receive  the  truth,  and  she  must  com- 
municate that  truth  by  all  the  means  at  her  command.  Hence  your 
schools,  colleges,  and  theological  seminaries ;  hence  also  your  educa- 
tional institutions  among  the  heathen,  and  your  establishments  for 
printing  and  distributing  Bibles,  tracts,  and  religious  books.  On  this 
foundation  rest  your  Boards  of  Education  and  Publication.  4.  It 
follows  from  the  great  commission  of  the  Church,  that  it  is  her  pre- 
rogative and  duty  to  testify  for  the  truth  and  the  law  of  God,  where- 
ever  she  can  make  her  voice  heard ;  not  only  to  her  own  people,  but  to 
kings  and  rulers,  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  is  her  duty  not  only  to  an- 
nounce the  truth,  but  to  apply  it  to  particular  cases  and  persons; 
that  is,  she  is  bound  to  instruct,  rebuke,  and  exhort,  with  all  long- 
suffering.  She  is  called  of  God  to  set  forth  and  enjoin  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men  the  relative  duties  of  parents  and  children,  of  magis- 
trates and  people,  of  masters  and  slaves.  If  parents  neglect  their  duties, 
she  is  called  ujion  by  her  divine  commission  to  instruct  and  exhort 
them.  If  magistrates  transcend  the  limits  of  their  authority,  and  tres- 
pass on  the  divine  law,  she  is  bound  to  raise  her  voice  in  remonstrance 
and  warning.  She  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  state,  in  the  exercise  of 
its  discretion  within  its  own  sphere ;  and  therefore  has  no  right  to  med- 
dle with  questions  of  policy,  foreign  or  domestic.  She  has  nothing  to 
do  with  tariffs,  or  banks,  or  internal  improvements.    We  say,  with  Dr. 


104  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Thoruwell,  "Let  the  dead  bury  the  dead."  Let  Qesar  attend  to  his 
own  affairs.  But  if  Caesar  undertakes  to  meddle  with  the  affairs  of 
God ;  if  the  state  pass  any  laws  contrary  to  the  ''law  of  God,  then  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  Church,  to  whom  God  has  committed  the  great  work  of 
asserting  and  maintaining  his  truth  and  will,  to  protect  and  remon- 
strate. If  the  state  not  only  violates  the  Sabbath,  but  makes  it  a  con- 
dition to  holding  office,  that  others  should  violate  it;  or  if  it  legalizes 
piracy,  or  concubinage,  or  polygamy;  if  it  prohibits  the  worship  of 
God,  or  the  free  use  of  the  means  of  salvation ;  if,  in  short,  it  does  any- 
thing directly  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  the  Church  is  bound  to  make 
;that  law  known,  and  set  it  home  upon  the  conscience  of  all  concerned. 

In  many  of  our  states,  there  are  in  force  laws  relating  to  marriage 
and  divorce,  in  open  conflict  with  the  word  of  God.  We  hold  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  Church  of  every  denomination,  in  those  states,  to  tell 
their  legislators,  that  while  they  have  the  right  to  legislate  about  mat- 
ters of  property  and  civil  rights  at  their  discretion,  under  the  constitu- 
tion, they  have  no  right  to  separate  those  whom  God  has  joined  to- 
gether, or  make  that  lawful  which  God  has  declared  to  be  unlawful. 

A  few  years  since,  Dr.  Thornwell  preached  an  elaborate  sermon,  set- 
ting forth  what  he  believed  to  be  the  true  teaching  of  the  word  of  God 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.  What  he  had  a  right  to  do,  and  was  bound 
to  do  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  the  Church  has  the  right  and  obliga- 
tion to  do.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  Northern  brethren  would  abstain  from 
teaching,  on  that  and  other  subjects,  what  God  does  not  teach ;  and  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  Southern  brethren  would  clearly  assert,  in  their  ca- 
pacity of  ministers  and  a  Church,  what  they  fully  believe  God  does 
teach,  great  good  and  God's  blessing,  we  doubt  not,  would  be  the  result. 
They  are  as  much  bound  to  teach  the  truth  on  this  subject,  as  a  Church 
as  they  are  bound  to  do  it  as  ministers;  and  they  are  surely  as  much 
bound  to  teach  the  law  of  God  resj^ecting  the  duties  of  masters  and 
slaves,  as  they  are  to  teach  what  God  says  of  the  duty  of  parents  and 
children,  of  saints  and  sinners.  There  is  a  great  temptation  to  adopt 
theories  which  free  us  from  painful  responsibilities ;  but  we  are  satisfied 
that  the  brethren  must,  on  reflection,  be  convinced  that  the  duty  to  tes- 
tify to  the  truth,  to  make  it  known,  and  to  press  it  upon  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men,  is  as  much  obligatory  on  the  Church,  in  her  aggre- 
gate capacity,  as  on  her  individual  pastors.  Her  Confession  and 
Catechisms  are  an  admirable  summary  of  that  testimony ;  but  she  is 
no  more  to  be  satisfied  with  them,  than  the  ministry  is  to  be  satisfied 
with  reading  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Sabbath  after  Sabbath  to  the 
people. 

The  principle  which  defines  and  limits  the  prerogative  and 
duty  of  the   Church  in  all  such  cases,  seems  to  us  perfectly  plain. 


PEOVINCE  OF  THE  CHUECH.  105 

She  has  nothing  to  do  as  a  Church  with  secular  afiairs,  mth  ques- 
tions of  politics  or  state  policy.  Her  duty  is  to  announce  and  en- 
force by  moral  means  the  law  of  God.  If  at  any  time,  as  luay  well 
happen,  a  given  question  assumed  both  a  moral  and  political  bearing, 
as  for  example,  the  slave-trade,  then  the  duty  of  the  Church  is  limited 
to  setting  forth  the  law  of  God  on  the  subject.  It  is  not  her  office  to 
argue  the  question  in  its  bearing  on  the  civil  or  secular  interests  of 
the  community,  but  simply  to  declare  in  her  official  capacity  Avhat 
God  has  said  on  the  subject.  To  adopt  any  theory  which  would  stop 
the  mouth  of  the  Church,  and  prevent  her  bearing  her  testimony  to 
kings  and  rulers,  magistrates  and  people,  in  behalf  of  the  truth  and 
law  of  God,  is  like  administering  chloroform  to  a  man  to  prevent  his 
doing  mischief.  We  pray  God  that  this  poison  may  be  dashed  away, 
before  it  has  reduced  the  Church  to  a  state  of  inanition,  and  delivered 
her  bound  hand  and  foot  into  the  power  of  the  world.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  same  principle  is  applicable  to  ministers.  They  profane  the 
pulpit  when  they  preach  politics,  or  turn  the  sacred  desk  into  a  ros- 
trum for  lectures  on  secular  affairs.  But  they  are  only  faithful  to 
their  vows  when  they  proclaim  the  truth  of  God  and  apply  his  law  to 
all  matters  whether  of  private  manners  or  laws  of  the  state.  The  whole 
history  of  the  Presbji;erian  Church  in  Europe  and  America  is  instinct 
with  this  spirit.  The  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  told  the  government 
that  it  had  no  right  to  establish  Popery  or  Prelacy,  and  that  they 
would  not  submit  to  it.  Our  fathers  of  the  Revolution  took  sides  Avith 
the  country  in  the  struggle  for  independence,  and  protested  against  the 
acts  of  the  British  Government  tending  to  the  introduction  of  Episco- 
pacy. Before  the  Revolution  the  old  Synod  remonstrated  with  the  au- 
thorities in  Virginia,  for  their  persecuting  laws.  In  1830  the  Gene- 
eral  Assembly  raised  its  voice  against  the  persecution  of  Christians  in 
Switzerland.  It  has,  over  and  over,  remonstrated  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  this  country  on  the  laws  enjoining  the  carrying  and  distribu- 
tion of  the  mails  on  Sunday.  While  admitting  that  the  Bible  does 
not  forbid  slave-holding,  it  has  borne  its  testimony  in  the  most  explicit 
terms  against  the  iniquity  of  many  slave  laws.  It  has  many  times  en- 
joined on  the  conscience  of  the  people  the  duty  of  instructing  the  col- 
ored population  of  our  land,  and  patronized  the  establishment  of 
schools  for  that  purpose.  It  has  never  been  afraid  to  denounce  what 
God  forbids,  or  to  proclaim  in  all  ears  what  God  commands.  This  is 
her  prerogative  and  this  is  her  duty. 

******** 
Presbyterians  have  always  held  that  the  Church  is  bound  to  hold 
forth  in  the  face  of  all  men  the  truth  and  law  of  God,  to  testify  against 
all  infractions  of  that  law  by  rulers  or  people,  to  lend  her  countenance 


106  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  support  to  all  means,  within  and  without  her  jurisdiction,  which 
she  believes  to  be  designed  and  wisely  adapted  to  promote  the  glory 
and  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  our  Church  has  always 
done,  and  we  pray  God,  she  may  continue  to  do  even  to  the  end. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH   AND  STATE.  [*] 

This  is  an  exceedingly  complicated  and  difficult  subject.     There  are 
three  aspects  under  which  it  may  be  viewed. 
^.      I.  The  actual  relation  which  at  different  times  and  in  different  coun- 
\  tries  has  subsisted  between  the  two  institutions. 

I      II.  The  theory  devised  to  justify  or  determine  the  limits  of  such 
;  existing  relation. 

;      III.  The  normal  relation,  such  as  should  exist  according  to  the  re- 
;  vealed  will  of  God,  and  the  nature  of  the  state  and  of  the  Church. 

Before  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  the  Church  was  of  course  so  far 
independent  of  the  state,  that  she  determined  her  own  faith,  regulated 
her  worship,  chose  her  officers,  and  exercised  her  discipline  without  any 
interference  of  the  civil  authorities.  Her  members  were  regarded  as 
citizens  of  the  state,  whose  religious  opinions  and  practices  were,  except 
in  times  of  persecution,  regarded  as  matters  of  indifference.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  much  the  same  liberty  was  accorded  to  the  early  Christians 
as  was  granted  by  the  Romans  to  the  Jews,  who  were  not  only  allowed, 
in  ordinary  cases,  to  conduct  their  synagogue  services  as  they  pleased, 
but  to  decide  matters  of  dispute  among  themselves,  according  to  their 
own  laws.  It  is  also  stated  that  Churches  were  allowed  to  hold  real 
estate  before  the  profession  of  Christianity  by  the  Emperor. 

When  Constantine  declared  himself  a  Christian,  he  expressed  the 
relation  which  was  henceforth  to  subsist  between  the  Church  and  state, 
by  saying  to  certain  bishops,  "God  has  made  you  the  bishops  of  the 
internal  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  me  the  bishop  of  its  external  affairs." 
This  saying  has  ever  since  been,  throughout  a  large  portion  of  Christ- 
endom, the  standing  formula  for  expressing  the  relation  of  the  civil 
magistrate  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

According  to  this  statement,  it  belongs  to  the  Church,  through  her 
own  organs,  to  choose  her  officers,  to  regulate  all  matters  relating  to 

[  *Article,  same  title,  Princeton  Eeview,  1863,  p.  679.] 


EELATION  OF  THE  CHUECH  AND  STATE.  107 

doctrine,  to  administer  tlie  word  and  sacraments,  to  order  public  wor- 
ship, and  to  exercise  discipline.  And  to  the  state  to  provide  for  the 
support  of  the  clergy,  to  determine  the  sources  and  amount  of  their 
incomes,  to  fix  the  limits  of  parishes  and  dioceses,  to  provide  places  of 
public  worship,  to  call  together  the  clergy,  to  preside  in  their  meetings, 
to  give  the  force  of  laws  to  their  decisions,  and  to  see  that  external  obe- 
dience at  least  was  rendered  to  the  decrees  and  acts  of  discipline. 

And  this,  in  general  terms,  was  the  actual  relation  between  the  two 
institutions  under  the  Roman  emperors,  and  in  many  of  the  states 
which  rose  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Roman  empire.  But  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  distinction  between  the  internal  affairs  which  be- 
longed to  the  bishops,  and  the  external  which  belonged  to  the  civil 
ruler,  is  too  indefinite  to  keep  two  mighty  bodies  from  coming  into 
collision.  If  the  magistrate  provided  the  support  of  the  bishops  and 
sustained  them  in  their  places  of  influence,  he  felt  entitled  to  have  a 
voice  in  saying  who  should  receive  his  funds,  and  use  that  influence. 
If  he  was  to  enforce  the  decisions  of  councils  as  to  matters  of  faith  and 
discipline,  he  must  have  some  agency  in  determining  what  those  deci- 
sions should  be.  If  he  was  to  banish  from  his  kingdom  those  whom  the 
clergy  excluded  from  the  Church,  he  must  judge  whether  such  exclu- 
sion was  in  itself  just.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Church  was 
recognized  as  a  divine  institution,  with  divinely  constituted  government 
and  powers,  she  would  constantly  struggle  to  preserve  her  prerogatives 
from  the  encroachments  of  the  state,  and  to  draw  to  herself  all  the 
power  requisite  to  enforce  her  decisions  in  the  sphere  of  the  state  into 
which  she  was  adopted,  which  she  of  right  possessed  in  her  own  sphere 
as  a  spiritual,  and,  in  one  sense  voluntary,  society. 

Simple  and  plausible,  therefore,  as  the  relation  between  the  Church 
and  state,  as  determined  by  Constantine,  may  at  first  sight  appear,  the 
whole  history  of  the  Church  shows  that  it  cannot  be  maintained. 
Either  the  Church  will  encroach  on  the  peculiar  province  of  the  state, 
or  the  state  upon  that  of  the  Church.  It  would  require  an  outline  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  from  Constantine  to  the  present  day,  to  exhibit 
the  conflicts  and  vacillations  of  these  two  principles.  The  struggle 
though  protracted  and  varied  in  its  prospects,  was  decided  in  favor  of 
the  Church,  which  under  the  papacy  gained  a  complete  ascendency  over 
the  state. 

The  papal  world  constituted  one  body,  of  which  the  Pope,  as  vicar 
of  Christ,  was  the  head.  This  spiritual  body  claimed  a  divine  right  to 
make  its  own  laws,  appoint  its  own  ofiicers,  and  have  its  own  tribunals, 
to  which  alone  its  officers  were  amenable,  and  before  whom  all  per- 
sons in  the  state,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  could  be  cited  to  ap- 
pear.    All  ecclesiastical  persons  were  thus  withdrawn  from  the  juris- 


108  CHURCH  POLITY. 

diction  of  the  state;  while  all  civil  persons  were  subject  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Church.  The  Church  being  the  infallible  judge  of  all 
questions  relating  to  faith  and  practice,  and  it  being  the  obvious  duty 
of  all  men  to  receive  the  decisions  and  obey  the  injunctions  of  an  infal- 
lible authority,  the  state  was  bound  to  receive  all  those  decisions  and 
enforce  all  those  commands.  The  civil  magistrate  had  no  judgment 
or  discretion  in  the  case  ;  he  was  but  the  secular  arm  of  the  Church, 
with  whose  judgments,  no  matter  how  injurious  he  might  regard  them 
to  his  own  prerogative,  or  to  the  interests  of  his  people,  he  had  no 
right  to  interfere.  The  Church,  however,  claimed  the  right  to  inter- 
fere m  all  the  decisions  of  the  civil  power ;  because  she  only  could 
judge  whether  those  decisions  were  or  were  not  inimical  to  the  true 
faith,  or  consistent  with  the  rule  of  duty.  Hence  arose  what  is  called 
the  indirect  power  of  the  Church  in  the  temporal  affairs  of  the 
state.  Even  without  going  to  the  extreme  of  claiming  for  the  Pope, 
by  divine  right,  a  direct  sovereignty  over  the  Christian  world,  mod- 
erate Romanists  of  the  Italian  school  claimed  for  the  Pope,  this  indi- 
rect power  in  the  civil  affairs  of  kingdoms ;  that  is,  power  of  deciding 
whether  any  law  or  measure  was  or  was  not  hurtful  to  the  Church, 
and  either  to  sanction  or  to  annul  it.  And  in  case  any  sovereign 
should  persist  in  a  course  pronounced  by  an  infallible  authority  hurt- 
ful to  the  Church,  the  obligation  of  obedience  on  the  part  of  his  sub- 
jects was  declared  to  be  at  an  end,  and  the  sovereign  deposed. 

In  most  cases,  the  actual  relation  between  the  Church  and  state  is 
determined  historically,  i-  e.,  by  the  course  of  events,  and  then  a  the- 
ory invented  to  explain  and  justify  it ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  papacy, 
it  is  probable  the  theory  preceded  and  produced  the  actual  relation. 
On  the  assumption  of  the  external  unity  of  the  whole  Church  under  a 
visible  head,  and  of  the  infallibility  of  that  visible  body  when  speaking 
through  its  appropriate  organ,  the  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  state, 
which  Gregory  strove  to  realize,  and  which  did  for  ages  subsist,  is  the 
normal  relation ;  and  it  is  therefore,  at  the  present  day,  the  very  the- 
ory which  is  held  by  the  great  body  of  Romanists. 

In  practice,  however,  it  was  found  intolerable,  and  therefore,  espe- 
cially in  France,  and  later  in  Austria,  the  kings  have  resisted  this  dom- 
ination, and  asserted  that  as  the  state  no  less  than  the  Church  is  of 
divine  origin,  the  former  has  the  right  to  judge  whether  the  acts  and 
decisions  of  the  Church  are  consistent  with  the  rights  and  interests  of 
the  state.  The  kings  of  France,  therefore,  claimed  indirect  power  in 
the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  exercised  the  right  of  giving  a  placet,  as 
it  was  called,  to  acts  of  the  Church  ;  that  is,  they  required  that  such 
acts  should  be  submitted  to  them,  and  receive  their  sanction  before 
taking  effect  in  their  dominions. 


RELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  109 

II.  As  the  Eeformation  involved  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
visible  unity  of  the  Church  under  one  infallible  head,  it  of  necessity 
introduced  a  change  in  the  relation  between  the  state  and  the  Church. 
This  relation,  however,  was  very  different  in  different  countries,  and 
that  difference  was  evidently  not  the  result  of  any  preconceived  theory, 
but  of  the  course  of  events.  It  was,  therefore,  one  thing  in  England, 
another  in  Scotland,  and  another  in  Germany. 

With  regard  to  England,  it  may  be  said,  in  general  terms,  that  the 
Reformation  was  effected  by  the  civil  power.  The  authority  by 
which  all  changes  were  decreed,  was  that  of  the  king  and  parlia- 
ment. The  Church  passively  submitted,  subscribing  articles  presented 
for  acceptance,  and  adopting  forms  of  worship  and  general  regulations 
prescribed  for  her  use.  This  fact  is  so  inconsistent  with  the  high- 
church  theory,  that  every  effort  is  made  by  advocates  of  that  theory, 
to  evade  its  force,  and  to  show  that  the  change  was  the  work  of  the 
Church  itself.  It  is  admitted,  however,  by  episcopal  writers  them- 
selves, that  in  the  time  of  Henry  and  Edward,  the  great  majority  both 
of  the  clfrgy  and  the  people,  i.  e.,  the  Church,  was  opposed  to  the 
reformation. 

Henry  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  though  he  adhered  to  the 
doctrines  of  Romanism.  He  declared  himself  by  act  of  Parliament  the 
head  of  the  Church,  and  required  all  the  bishops  to  give  up  their  sees, 
suspending  them  from  office,  and  then  made  each  take  out  a  commis- 
sion from  the  crown,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  all  ecclesiastical 
power  flowed  from  the  sovereign,  and  that  the  bishops  acted  in  his 
name,  and  by  virtue  of  power  derived  from  him. 

The  six  articles  were  framed  by  his  authority,  in  opposition  to  Cran- 
mer  and  the  real  Reformers,  and  enacted  by  Parliament,  and  made 
obligatory  under  severe  penalties,  upon  all  the  clergy.  These  articles 
affirm  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  Romanism. 

The  clearest  proof  that  they  rested  on  the  authority  of  the  king  is, 
that  as  soon  as  he  died  they  were  discarded,  and  a  doctrinal  formulary 
of  an  opposite  character  adopted. 

Under  Edward  the  Sixth,  the  actual  practice  was  for  the  crown  to 
appoint  a  certain  number  of  the  clergy  to  prepare  the  requisite  formu- 
laries or  measures,  and  then  these,  if  approved  by  the  king,  were  pub- 
lished in  his  name,  and  enforced  by  act  of  Parliament.  The  convo- 
cation and  the  clergy  then  gave  their  assent.  It  was  thus  the  Prayer 
Book  was  prepared  and  introduced.  Thus,  too,  the  Articles  of  Reli- 
gion were,  under  Edward,  the  act  of  the  civil  power  alone.  They  were 
drawn  up  under  Cranmer's  direction,  and  with  the  assistance  of  other 
divines,  but  they  were  not  the  work  of  the  Convocation,  as  their  pre- 
amble would  seem  to  imply ;  nor  were  they  set  forth  by  any  authority 


no  CHURCH  POLITY. 

but  tliat  of  the  crown.  Short,  §  484.  Under  Elizabeth  they  were 
revised  by  the  Convocation. 

The  actual  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  state  in  England,  is  suffi- 
cieutlj  indicated  by  these  facts.  The  king  was  declared  to  be  the 
supreme  head  of  the  Church;  i.  e.,  the  source  of  authority  in  its 
government,  and  the  supreme  judge  of  all  persons  and  causes  ecclesi- 
astical, of  whatever  kind.  The  clergy  were  brought  with  great  diffi- 
culty to  make  this  acknowledgment,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  said  to  be 
the  spontaneous  act  of  the  Church.  It  was  rather  a  usurpation.  It  is 
said  that  the  acknowledgment  was  made  with  the  saving  clause,  quan- 
tum per  Christi  legem  licet,  with  regard  to  which,  there  is  a  dispute, 
whether  it  was  in  the  first  acknowledgment.  The  preponderance  of 
evidence,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  against  it ;  and  certain  it  is^  it  is  not 
now  in  the  oath.  And  it  can  make  little  diiference,  because  the  very 
end  of  the  oath  was  to  declare  that  Christ  did  allow  the  king  the  power 
which  he  claimed  and  exercised. 

The  khig  then,  as  head  of  the  Church,  changed  the  form  of  worship, 
introduced  new  articles  of  faith,  suspended  and  appointed  bishops,  vis- 
ited all  parts  of  the  Church  to  reform  abuses,  issued  edicts  regulating 
matters  of  discipline,  granted  commissions  to  the  bishops  to  act  in  his 
name,  and  by  act  of  Parliament  declared  that  all  jurisdiction,  spiritual 
and  temporal,  emanates  from  him,  and  that  all  proceedings  in  the 
episcopal  courts  should  be  in  his  name. 

These  principles  have  ever  been  acted  on  in  the  Church  of  England ; 
though  with  less  flagrancy  of  course  in  the  settled  state  of  the  Church 
than  at  the  Reformation.  All  the  proceedings,  however,  of  Elizabeth  ; 
all  the  acts  of  James  I.  against  the  Puritans ;  of  Charles  I.  in  Scotland, 
in  the  introduction  of  episcopacy  into  that  country ;  of  Charles  II.  at 
his  restoration,  and  even  of  William  III.  at  the  Revolution,  when  the 
non-juring  bishops  were  excluded,  were  founded  on  the  assumption  of 
the  absolute  power  of  the  state  over  the  Church.  And  everything  still 
rests  on  that  foundation.  The  king  still  appoints  all  the  bishops,  and 
has  the  legal  right  to  suspend  them ;  all  the  binding  authority  of  the 
Articles  and  Prayer  Book  rests  on  acts  of  Parliament.  No  man  can 
be  refused  admission  to  the  Church,  no  matter  what  his  opinions  or 
character,  against  the  will  of  the  state ;  and  no  man  can  be  excommu- 
nicated but  by  civil  process ;  and  the  ultimate  decision,  even  in  the 
trial  of  a  bishop  for  heresy,  is  rendered  by  the  king  in  council.  Wliidon. 

Different  theories  have  been  devised  to  justify  this  entire  subordina- 
tion of  the  Church  to  the  state.  The  early  Reformers,  Cranmer  espe- 
cially, were  thoroughly  Erastian  ;  and  held  that  the  king  was  intrusted 
with  the  whole  care  of  his  subjects,  as  well  concerning  the  administra- 
tion of  the  word,  as  in  things  civil  and  political ;  and  as  he  had  under 


EELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  m 

him  civil  officers  to  act  in  his  name,  so  he  had  Church  officers,  the  one 
class  being  assigned,  appointed,  and  selected  by  the  authority  of  the 
king,  as  much  as  the  other.  Cranmer  did.  not  even  hold  to  the  neces- 
sity of  any  ordination  by  Church  officers,  considering  the  king's  com- 
mission all  sufficient.  This  whole  theory  rests  on  an  exorbitant  notion 
of  the  regal  power. 

A  second  theory  supposes  that  there  is  no  difference  between  a 
Christian  state  and  a  Church.  A  Church  is  a  people  professing  Chris- 
tianity, and  they  may  adopt  what  form  of  government  they  please. 
This  supposes  not  only  that  the  details  of  Church  governmeiit  are  not 
prescribed  in  Scripture,  but  that  there  is  no  government  in  the  hands 
of  Church  officers  at  all  ordained  by  Christ ;  but  in  whatever  Avay  the 
will  of  the  sovereign  power,  i.  e.,  of  the  people,  is  expressed  an(]  exer- 
cised, is,  as  to  its  form,  legitimate;  and  hence  the  best  and  most  health- 
ful form  of  Church  government  is  that  which  most  fully  identifies  the 
Church  with  the  state.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Arnold.  Though 
this  theory,  if  sound,  might  justify  the  existing  state  of  things  in  Eng- 
land, it  cannot  justify  the  Reformation;  for  that  was  not  carried  on  by 
the  people,  i.  e.,  the  Church  in  its  state  capacity,  but  by  the  civil 
authority,  in  despite  both  of  the  clergy  and  the  people. 

High-churchmen  take  different  grounds.  Some  admit  the  irregu- 
larity in  the  mode  of  proceeding  under  Henry  and  Elizabeth,  but 
justify  it  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  or  of  extraordinary  emergency, 
calling  for  the  exercise  of  extraordinary  powers.  Others,  as  Mr.  Pal- 
mer, deny  that  the  Church  is  responsible  for  those  acts,  or  tliat  she  is 
to  be  judged  by  the  preamble  of  acts  of  Parliament,  or  by  the  claims 
or  acts  of  the  crown,  but  exclusively  by  her  own  declarations  and  acts. 
And  he  endeavours  to  show  that  all  the  leading  facts  of  the  Reforma- 
tion were  determined  by  the  Church.  To  do  this,  however,  he  is 
obliged  to  maintain  that  what  the  king  did  on  the  advice  of  a  few 
divines,  was  done  by  the  Church,  which  is  as  unreasonable  as  to  refer 
the  sanatory  or  legal  regulations  of  a  kingdom  to  the  authority  of  the 
physicians  or  lawyers  who  may  be  consulted  in  drawing  them  up. 

Mr.  Palmer  falls  back  on  the  theory  suggested  by  Constantino, 
which  assigns  the  internal  government  of  the  Church  to  bishops,  and 
the  external  to  the  king.  He  accordingly  denies  that  tlie  king  can, 
either  by  himself  or  by  officers  deriving  their  authority  from  him,  pro- 
nounce definitions  of  faith,  administer  the  word  or  sacraments,  or  ab- 
solve or  excommunicate.  He  may,  however,  convene  Synods,  and 
preside  in  them ;  sanction  their  decisions,  and  give  them  the  force  of 
laws ;  he  may  refuse  to  sanction  them,  if  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  or  injurious  to  the  state;  he  may  receive  appeals 
from  Church-courts;  preserve  subordination  and  unity  in  the  Church; 


112  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

prevent,  by  civil  pains  and  penalties,  all  secession  from  her  communion, 
and  found  and  endow  new  bishoprics. 

This  doctrine  rests  on  the  assumption,  1.  That  it  is  the  design  of  the 
state,  and  the  duty  of  its  officers,  to  promote  and  sustain  religion  by 
civil  pains  and  penalties;  2.  That  the  Church  is  a  divine  institution, 
"with  a  prescribed  faith  and  discipline;  and  3.  That  the  marks  of  the 
true  Church  are  so  plain  that  no  honest  man  can  mistake  them. 

The  only  point  in  which  this  system  differs  from  the  papal  doctrine 
on  this  subject  is,  that  it  allows  the  civil  magistrate  discretion  whether 
he  will  enforce  the  decisions  of  the  Church  or  not.  This  difference 
arises  from  the  fact  that  tractarians  do  not  pretend  that  provincial 
synods  are  infallible ;  and  with  such  only  has  the  king  anything  to  do ; 
"whereas  Romanists  maintain  that  the  pope,  speaking  ex  cathedra,  is 
infallible.  There  is  room,  therefore,  for  discretion  in  reference  to  the 
decisions  of  the  former,  but  none  in  reference  to  those  of  the  latter. 

Mr.  Palmer,  however,  is  far  from  maintaining  that  the  actual  state 
of  things  corresponds  with  his  theory,  and  most  tractarians  are  loud  in 
their  complaints  of  the  bondage  under  which  the  Church  in  England 
is  now  groaning. 

III.  Lutherans.  In  Germany  the  course  of  the  Reformation  "was 
very  different  from  what  it  was  in  England,  and  consequently  the  re- 
lation between  the  Church  and  state  received  a  different  form.  The 
movement  took  its  rise,  and  was  guided  in  all  its  progress,  in  the  for- 
mer country,  by  Luther  and  his  associates,  and  was  sanctioned  cordially 
by  the  people.  He  did  not  wait  to  be  called  up  by  the  Elector  to  de- 
nounce the  errors  of  popery,  or  to  reform  its  abuses.  He  did  both,  and 
the  people  joined  him.  They  besought  the  civil  authorities  to  sanction 
these  changes,  and  to  protect  and  aid  them  in  carrying  them  out.  And 
the  Electors  slowly  and  cautiously  granted  their  sanction.  The  Re- 
formation here,  therefore,  did  not  proceed  from  the  state,  but  really 
and  truly  from  the  Church,  i.  e.,  the  clergy  and  people,  and  the  stats 
sanctioned  and  joined  it.  Had  the  bishops  generally  coSperated  in  the 
work,  it  is  probable,  from  the  frequent  declarations  of  Luther  and  IMe- 
lancthon,  they  would  in  Germany,  as  in  Sweden,  have  been  allowed,  not 
as  a  matter  of  right,  but  of  expediency,  to  retain  the  executive  power 
in  their  hands.  But  as  they  had  not  only  greatly  neglected  all  disci- 
pline in  the  Church,  and  finally  sided  with  Rome,  the  Reformers  called 
on  the  electors  to  appoint  consistories,  to  be  composed,  as  they  expressed 
it,  "of  honest  and  learned  men,"  to  supply  the  deficiency.  These 
bodies  were  at  first  designed  simply  to  administer  discipline.  They 
were  to  be  Church  courts,  for  the  trial  and  punishment  of  spiritual 
offences.  As,  however,  the  bishops  withdrew,  the  powers  of  the  consis- 
tories were  enlarged,  and  they  became  on  the  one  hand  the  organ  of 


EELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  II3 

the  Church.  As  the  members  of  these  consistories  are  appointed  by 
the  state,  and  as  they  are  the  organs  of  administering  both  the  internal 
and  external  affairs  of  the  state,  the  prince  is,  in  Lutheran  countries, 
the  real  possessor  of  Church  power,  i.  e.,  it  is  regarded  as  inhering  in 
him.  The  whole  administration  of  its  affairs  are  in  his  hands,  and 
whatever  changes  are  introduced,  are  made  by  his  authority.  Accor- 
dingly, the  union  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  and  the 
introduction  of  a  new  liturgy,  was  the  act  of  the  late  king  of  Prussia. 
At  first  it  was  only  advisory  on  his  part,  but  he  subsequently  began  to 
coerce  compliance  with  his  will.  This  extreme  exercise  of  authority, 
however,  met  with  great  opposition,  and  was,  by  a  large  part  of  the 
Church,  considered  as  transcending  the  legitimate  power  of  the  state. 
The  present  king  disclaims  such  power,  and  says  he  wishes  to  know 
the  mind  of  the  Church,  and  stands  ready  to  carry  out  her  wishes,  if 
consistent  with  his  conscience. 

The  actual  power  of  the  state  in  Lutheran  countries  was  the  result 
of  the  Reformation,  and  not  of  a  theory  of  what  ought  to  be  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Church  and  state.  Different  theories  have  been  suggested, 
in  order  to  give  form  and  intelligibility  to  this  relation.  The  most 
common  is,  that  the  prince  is  there,  and,  by  the  will  of  the  Church, 
heir  to  the  power  of  the  bishops.  His  power  is  therefore  called  an 
episcopate.  This  theory  includes  the  following  points.  1.  Civil  and 
ecclesiastical  government  are  distinct.  2.  The  object  of  Church  gov- 
ernment is  mainly  the  preservation  of  the  truth.  3.  Church  power 
belongs  by  the  ordinance  of  God  to  the  Church  itself,  and  to  the  prince 
as  the  highest  member  of  the  Church,  and  since  the  religious  peace,  by 
the  legal  devolution  on  him  of  the  power  of  the  bishops.  4.  This 
authority  is,  however,  only  external,  a  potestas  externa,  in  the  exercise 
of  which  he  is  bound  to  act  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  clei'gy, 
and  the  people  have  the  right  of  assent  or  dissent.  This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  three  orders,  as  it  is  called,  that  is,  that  Church  power  belongs 
to  the  Church  as  composed  of  prince,  clergy,  and  people. 

5.  Hence  the  Prince  possesses  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power  in  differ- 
ent ways  and  on  different  subjects.  This  is  considered  the  orthodox, 
established  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  the  relation  of  the 
Church  and  state.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  all  the  older,  eminent  theolo- 
gians of  that  Church.  Stahl's  Klrchenverfassxmg,  p.  20.  The  other 
theories  are  the  Territorial,  i.  e.,  Erastian ;  the  collegiate  (voluntary 
union)  and  the  Hegelian — that  the  state  is  God's  kingdom  ;  the  Church 
but  a  form  of  the  state.  The  prince,  the  point  of  unity ;  having  the 
full  power  of  both.  He  appoints,  (not  merely  confirms  bishops,)  pre- 
scribes liturgies,  and  gives  the  contents  as  well  as  the  binding  form  to 
all  Church  decisions.    Stahl,  p.  125. 


114  CHURCH  POLITY. 

IV.  Reformed  Church. 

Accordiug  to  the  Reformed  Church  of  Geneva,  Germany,  France, 
Holland,  and  Scotland,  the  relation  of  the  state  and  Church  is  taught 
in  the  following  propositions  as  given  and  sustained  by  Turrettin. 
Lee.  28,  Ques.  34. 

1.  Various  rights  belong  to  the  Christian  magistrate  in  reference,  to 
the  Church. 

This  authority  is  confined  within  certain  limits,  and  is  essentially 
difierent  from  that  of  pastors.  These  limits  are  thus  determined,  a. 
The  magistrate  cannot  introduce  new  articles  of  faith,  or  new  rites  or 
modes  of  worship,  h.  He  cannot  administer  the  word  and  sacraments. 
c.  He  does  not  possess  the  power  of  the  keys.  d.  He  cannot  prescribe 
to  pastors  the  form  of  preaching  or  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
e.  He  cannot  decide  on  ecclesiastical  affairs,  or  on  controversies  of 
faith,  without  consulting  the  pastors. 

On  the  other  hand,  a.  He  ought  to  establish  the  true  religion,  and 
when  established,  faithfully  uphold  it,  and  if  corrupted,  restore  and 
reform  it.  h.  He  should,  to  the  utmost,  protect  the  Church  by  re- 
straining heretics  and  disturbers  of  its  peace,  by  propagating  and  de- 
fending the  true  religion,  and  hindering  the  confession  of  false  reli- 
gions, c.  Provide  proper  ministers,  and  sustain  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  word  and  sacraments,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
found  schools  as  well  for  the  Church  as  the  state,  d.  See  that  ministers 
do  their  duty  faithfully  according  to  the  canons  of  the  Church  and  the 
laws  of  the  laud.  e.  Cause  that  confessions  of  faith  and  ecclesiastical 
constitutions,  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  be  sanctioned,  and  when 
sanctioned  adhered  to.  /.  To  call  ordinary  and  extraordinary  synods, 
to  moderate  in  them,  and  to  sanction  their  decisions  with  his  authority. 

The  question,  "whether  the  state  can  rightfully  force  its  subjects  to 
profess  the  faith,"  is  answered  in  the  negative.  The  question, 
"  whether  heretics  should  be  capitally  punished,"  is  answered  in  the  af- 
firmative, provided  their  heresy  is  gross  and  dangerous  to  the  Church 
and  state,  and  provided  they  are  contumacious  and  malignant  in  the 
defence  and  propagation  of  it. 

The  Westminister  Confession,  as  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, taught  the  same  general  doctrine.  The  23d  chap,  of  that  Con- 
fession contains  the  following  clause :  "  The  civil  magistrate  may  not 
assume  to  himself  the  administration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or 
the  power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  he  hath  authority, 
and  it  is  his  duty,  to  take  order  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in 
the  Church,  that  the  faith  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all 
blasphemies  and  heresies  be.  suppressed,  all  corruptions  and  abuses  in 
worship  and  discipline  be  prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  ordinances  of 


EELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  II5 

God  duly  settled,  administered,  and  observed  ;  for  the  better  effecting 
whereof  he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be  present  at  them,  and  to 
provide  that  whatsoever  is  transacted  in  them  be  according  to  the 
mind  of  God." 

When  this  Confession  was  adopted  by  our  Church  in  1729,  this 
clause  was  excepted,  or  adopted  only  in  a  qualified  manner  ;  and  when 
our  present  constitution  was  adopted  in  1789,  it  and  the  corresponding 
passages  in  the  Larger  Catechism  were  omitted.  It  has,  however,  al- 
ways been  part  of  the  Confession  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  (and  was, 
it  is  believed,  retained  in  the  Cambridge  and  Saybrooke  Platforms  as 
adopted  in  New  England). 

In  words,  this  clause  seems  to  cover  all  the  ground  taken  by  Mr. 
Palmer.  History  shows,  however,  that  the  Church  in  Scotland  has 
even  been,  in  a  great  measure,  independent  of  the  state,  and  for  gene- 
rations in  conflict  with  it.  The  practical  interpretation,  therefore,  of 
the  doctrine  here  taught,  has  been  to  deny  to  the  civil  magistrate  any 
real  control  in  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

The  late  Dr.  Cunningham,  in  one  of  his  tracts,  occasioned  by  the  re- 
cent controversies,  thus  expounds  the  doctrine  of  this  passage. 

1.  He  says,  by  the  civil  magistrate  is  to  be  understood  the  supreme 
civil  power;  and  that  the  Confession  merely  teaches  what  the  civil 
ruler  will  find  to  be  his  duty  when  he  comes  to  the  study  of  the  word 
of  God. 

2.  That  the  rule  of  all  his  judgments  is  the  word  of  God. 

8.  That  the  Confession  denies  to  the  civil  magistrate  all  right  to  the 
ministration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or  to  the  power  of  the  keys, 
that  is,  to  the  management  of  the  ordinary  affairs  of  the  Church  of 
Christ ;  and  states,  that  as  it  is  the  duty  of  every  private  person  to 
judge  for  himself  whether  the  doctrines,  discipline,  and  decisions  of  a 
Church,  are  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  if  so,  then  to  receive, 
obey,  and  promote  them  ;  so  also  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate, 
in  his  sphere,  and  in  the  exercise  of  his  legitimate  authority  and  influ- 
ence, to  do  the  same. 

In  that  branch  of  the  Reformed  Church  which  was  transported  to 
this  country  by  the  Puritans,  and  established  in  New  England,  this 
same  doctrine  as  to  the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  and  relation  to  the 
Church  and  state,  was  taught,  though  under  a  somewhat  modified 
form.  The  New  England  theory  was  more  that  of  a  theocracy.  All 
civil  power  was  confined  to  the  members  of  the  Church,  no  person  be- 
ing either  eligible  to  office,  or  entitled  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  who 
was  not  in  full  communion  of  some  Church.  The  laws  of  the  Church 
became  thus  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  two  institutions  were  in  a 
measure  merged  together.     The  duty  of  the  magistrate  to  make  and 


116  CHUECH  POLITY. 

enforce  laws  for  the  support  of  religion,  for  the  suppression  of  heresy 
and  punishment  of  heretics,  was  clearly  taught.  John  Colton  even 
wrote  a  book  to  prove  that  persecution  was  a  Christian  duty. 

The  theory  on  which  this  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  is 
founded,  is,  1.  That  the  State  is  a  divine  institution,  designed  for  pro- 
moting the  general  welfare  of  society,  and  as  religion  is  necessary  to 
that  welfare,  religion  falls  legitimately  within  the  sphere  of  the  state. 

2.  That  the  magistrate,  as  representing  the  state,  is,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, the  guardian  of  the  law,  to  take  vengeance  on  those  who  trans- 
gress, and  for  the  praise  of  those  who  obey  ;  and  as  the  law  consists  of 
two  tables,  one  relating  to  our  duties  to  God,  and  the  other  to  our 
duties  to  men,  the  magistrate  is,  ex  officio,  the  guardian  of  both  tables, 
and  bound  to  punish  the  infractions  of  the  one,  as  well  as  of  the  other. 

3.  That  the  word  of  God  determines  the  limits  of  the  magistrate's  office 
in  reference  to  both  classes  of  his  duties ;  and  as,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, there  was  a  form  of  religion,  with  its  rites  and  officers  prescribed, 
which  the  magistrate  could  not  change,  so  there  is  under  the  New. 
But  under  the  Old,  we  find  with  this  Church  government  the  kings 
were  required  to  do,  and  in  fact  did  do  much,  for  the  support  and 
reformation  of  religion,  and  the  punishment  of  idolaters ;  so  they  are 
now  bound  to  act  on  the  same  principles,  making  the  pious  kings  of 
the  Old  Testament  their  model. 

V.  Relation  between  the  Church  and  state  in  this  country. 

The  doctrine  current  among  us  on  this  subject  is  of  very  recent 
origin.  It  was  unknown  to  the  ancients  before  the  advent.  In  no 
country  was  religion  disconnected  with  the  state.  It  was  unknown  to 
the  Jews.  The  early  Christians  were  not  in  circumstances  to  deter- 
mine the  duty  of  Christian  magistrates  to  the  Christian  Church.  Since 
the  time  of  Constantine,  in  no  part  of  Christendom,  and  by  no  denomi- 
nation, has  the  ground  been  assumed,  until  a  recent  period,  that  the 
state  and  Church  should  be  separate  and  independent  bodies.  Yet  to 
this  doctrine  the  public  mind  in  this  country  has  already  been  brought, 
and  to  the  same  conclusion  the  convictions  of  God's  people  in  all  parts 
of  the  world  seem  rapidly  tending.  On  what  grounds,  then,  does  this 
novel,  yet  sound,  doctrine  rest  ?  This  question  can  only  be  answered 
in  a  very  general  and  superficial  manner  on  the  present  occasion. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  assumes  that  the  state,  the  family,  and  the 
Church,  are  all  divine  institutions,  having  the  same  general  end  in 
view,  but  designed  to  accomplish  that  end  by  different  means.  That  as 
we  cannot  infer  from  the  fact  the  family  and  the  state  are  both  designed 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  men,  that  the  magistrate  has  the  right  to  in- 
terfere in  the  domestic  economy  of  the  family ;  so  neither  can  we  infer 
from  the  Church  and  state  having  the  same  general  end,  that  the  one 


KELATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  117 

can  rightfully  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  the  other.  If  there  were  no 
other  institution  than  the  family,  we  might  infer  that  all  the  means 
now  used  by  the  Church  and  state,  for  the  good  of  men,  might  properly 
be  used  by  the  family ;  and  if  there  were  no  Church,  as  a  separate  in- 
stitution of  God,  then  we  might  infer  that  the  family  and  the  state  were 
designed  to  accomplish  all  that  could  be  effected.  But  as  God  has 
instituted  the  family  for  domestic  training  and  government;  the  state, 
that  we  may  lead  quiet  and  peaceable  lives,  and  the  Church  for  the 
promotion  and  extension  of  true  religion,  the  three  are  to  be  kept  dis- 
tinctive within  thfeir  respective  spheres. 

2.  That  the  relative  duties  of  these  several  institutions  cannot  be 
learned  by  reasoning  a  priori  from  their  design,  but  must  be  deter- 
mined from  the  word  of  God.  And  when  reasoning  from  the  word  of 
God,  we  are  not  authorized  to  argue  from  the  Old  Testament  economy, 
because  that  was  avowedly  temporary,  and  has  been  abolished ;  but 
must  derive  our  conclusions  from  the  New  Testament.  We  find  it 
there  taught, 

(1.)  That  Christ  did  institute  a  Church  separate  from  the  state, 
giving  it  separate  laws  and  officers. 

(2.)  That  he  laid  down  the  qualifications  of  those  officers,  and  en- 
joined on  the  Church,  not  on  the  state,  to  judge  of  their  possession  by 
candidates. 

(3.)  That  he  prescribed  the  terms  of  admission  to,  and  the  grounds 
of  exclusion  from,  the  Church,  and  left  with  the  Church  its  officers  to 
administer  these  rules. 

These  acts  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  Erastianism,  and  with  the 
relation  established  in  England  between  the  Church  and  state. 

3.  That  the  New  Testament,  when  speaking  of  the  immediate  design 
of  the  state,  and  the  official  duties  of  the  magistrate,  never  intimates 
that  he  has  those  functions  which  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  Church  assign  him.  This  silence,  together  with 
the  fact  that,  those  functions  are  assigned  to  the  Church  and  Church 
officers,  is  proof  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  that  they  should  be  as- 
sumed by  the  state. 

4.  That  the  only  means  which  the  state  can  employ  to  accomplish 
many  of  the  objects  said  to  belong  to  it,  viz.,  pains  and  penalties,  are 
inconsistent  with  the  example  and  commands  of  Christ;  with  the 
rights  of  private  Christians,  guarantied  in  the  word  of  God,  {i.  e.,  to 
serve  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience,)  are  ineffectual 
to  the  true  end  of  religion,  which  is  voluntary  obedience  to  the  truth, 
and  productive  of  incalculable  evil.  The  New  Testament,  therefore, 
does  not  teach  that  the  magistrate  is  entitled  to  take  care  that  true  re- 
ligion is  established  and  maintained ;  that  right  men  are  appointed  to 


118  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Church  offices ;  that  those  officers  do  ^eir  duty ;  that  proper  persons 
be  admitted,  and  improper  persons  be  rejected  from  the  Church ;  or 
that  heretics  be  punished.  And  on  the  other  hand,  by  enjoining  all 
these  duties  upon  the  Church,  as  an  institution  distinct  from  the  state, 
it  teaches  positively  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  magistrate,  but  to 
the  Church.  If  to  this  it  be  added  that  experience  teaches  that  the 
magistrate  is  the  most  unfit  person  to  discharge  these  duties ;  that  his 
attempting  it  has  always  been  injurious  to  religion,  and  inimical  to  the 
rights  of  conscience,  we  have  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  recently  dis- 
covered truth,  that  the  Church  is  independent  of  the  state,  and  that  the 
state  best  promotes  her  interests  by  letting  her  alone. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

PRESBYTERIANISM.  [*] 

Much  time  was  devoted,  at  the  late  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly 
at  Rochester  [1860],  to  the  discussion  of  the  question.  What  is  Presby- 
terianism  ?  That  question,  indeed,  had  only  a  remote  connection  with 
the  subject  before  the  house.  That  subject  was  the  Boards  of  the 
Church.  These,  on  the  one  side,  were  pronounced  to  be  not  only  inex- 
pedient, but  unscriptural  and  unlawful ;  not  only  useless  excrescences, 
but  contrary  to  the  divine  rule  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God,  and  a 
reproach  to  our  blessed  Saviour.  "We  were  called  upon  to  reject  them 
as  a  matter  of  duty,  or  forfeit  our  allegiance  to  Christ.  On  the  other 
side,  it  was  contended  that  the  Boards  were  not  only  highly  useful,  as 
experience  had  proved,  but  that  they  were  entirely  within  the  discre- 
tion which  Christ  had  granted  to  his  Church,  and  therefore  compatible 
with  obedience  to  his  will,  and  with  our  allegiance  to  his  authority. 

To  make  out  any  plausible  argument  in  support  of  the  doctrine  that 
the  Boards  are  anti-scriptural,  required,  of  course,  a  peculiar  theory  of 
Presbyterianism ;  a  theory  which  should  exclude  all  discretionary 
power  in  the  Church,  and  tie  her  down  to  modes  of  action  prescribed  as 
of  divine  authority  in  the  word  of  God.  That  theory,  as  propounded 
by  Dr.  Thornwell  in  his  fii'st  speech  on  the  subject,  was  understood  to 
embrace  the  following  principles :  1.  That  the  form  of  government  for  the 
Church,  and  its  mode  of  action,  are  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God,  not 
merely  as  to  its  general  principles,  but  in  all  its  details,  as  completely 

[*  Article,  same  title,  Princeton  Review,  1860,  p.  54G.] 


PRESBYTEKIANISM.  Hg 

as  the  system  of  faith  or  the  moral  law  ;  and  therefore  everything  for 
which  we  cannot  produce  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  is  unscriptural  and 
unlawful. 

2.  Consequently,  the  Church  has  no  more  right  to  create  a  new 
office,  organ,  or  organization,  for  the  exercise  of  her  prerogatives  or  the 
execution  of  her  prescribed  work,  than  she  has  to  create  a  new  article 
of  faith,  or  to  add  a  new  command  to  tlie  Decalogue. 

3.  That  the  Church  cannot  delegate  her  powers.  She  must  exercise 
them  herself,  and  through  officers  and  organs  prescribed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. She  has  no  more  right  to  act  by  a  vicar,  than  Congress  has  to 
delegate  its  legislative  power,  or  a  Christian  to  pray  by  proxy. 

4.  That  all  executive,  legislative  and  judicial  power  in  the  Church 
is  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy,  that  is,  of  jjresbyters,  who  have  the  same 
ordination  and  office,  although  differing  in  functions. 

5.  That  all  power  in  the  Church  is  joint,  and  not  several.  That  is, 
it  can  be  exercised  only  by  Church  courts,  and  not  in  any  case  by  indi- 
vidual officers. 

In  opposition  to  this  general  scheme,  "  the  brother  from  Princeton" 
propounded  the  following  general  principles : 

1st.  That  all  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church  arise 
from  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  and  consequently,  where  he  dwells, 
there  are  those  attributes  and  prerogatives. 

2d.  That  as  the  Spirit  dwells  not  in  the  clergy  only,  but  in  the  people 
of  God,  all  power  is,  in  sensu  primo,  in  the  people. 

3d.  That  in  the  exercise  of  these  prerogatives,  the  Church  ls  to  be 
governed  by  principles  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God,  which  determine, 
within  certain  limits,  her  officers  and  modes  of  organization ;  but  that 
beyond  those  prescribed  principles  and  in  fidelity  to  them,  the  Church 
has  a  wide  discretion  in  the  choice  of  methods,  organs  and  agencies. 

4th.  That  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Presbyterian  system  are 
first,  the  parity  of  the  clergy ;  second,  the  right  of  the  people  to  a  sub- 
stantive part  in  the  government  of  the  Church  ;  and  third,  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  in  such  sense,  that  a  small  part  is  subject  to  a  larger, 
and  a  larger  to  the  whole. 

Without  attempting  any  development  of  these  principles,  the  re- 
marks of  the  speaker  in  reply  to  Dr.  Thornwell's  first  speech,  Avere 
directed  to  the  single  point  on  which  the  whole  question  in  debate 
turned.  That  was.  Is  the  Church  tied  down  in  the  exercise  of  her  pre- 
rogatives, and  in  the  performance  of  her  work,  to  the  organizations  or 
organs  prescribed  in  the  New  Testament  ?  In  other  words,  is  every- 
thing relating  to  the  government  and  action  of  the  Church  laid  down 
in  detail  in  the  word  of  God,  so  that  it  is  unlawful  to  employ  any 
organs  or  agencies  not  therein  enjoined  ?    If  this  is  so,  then  the  Boards 


120  CHURCH  POLITY. 

are  clearly  unlawful ;  if  it  is  not  so,  the  having  them,  or  not  having 
them,  is  a  matter  of  expediency. 

******** 
As  to  the  first  of  the  above-mentioned  principles,  it  was  not  pre- 
sented as  anything  peculiar  to  Presbyterianism.  It  is  simply  an  axiom 
of  evangelical  religion,  admitted  and  advocated  in  every  age  of  the 
Church  by  all  opponents  of  the  ritual  or  hierarchical  theory.  As  no 
man  is  a  Christian  unless  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwells  in  him,  so  no  body 
of  men  is  a  Church,  except  so  far  as  it  is  organized,  animated  and  con- 
trolled by  the  same  Spirit.  We  may  be  bound  to  recognize  men  as 
Christians  who  are  not  really  such,  and  we  may  be  bound  to  recognize 
Churches  who  are,  in  fact,  not  governed  by  the  Spirit.  But  in  both 
cases  they  are  assumed  to  be  Avhat  they  profess.  We  might  as  well 
call  a  lifeless  corpse  a  man,  as  a  body  without  the  Spirit  of  God  a 
Church.  The  one  may  be  called  a  dead  Church,  as  a  lifeless  human 
body  is  called  a  dead  man.  Nevertheless  the  Spirit  makes  the  Church, 
as  the  soul  makes  the  man.  The  Bible  says  that  the  Church  is  a  tem- 
ple, because  it  is  the  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit.  It  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  because  animated  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  said  to 
be  one,  because  the  Spirit  is  one.  "  For,"  says  the  apostle, "  as  the 
body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ;  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body."  It  is  the  baptism,  or  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit,  therefore,  which  constitutes  the  Church  one 
body.  And  as  (so  far  as  our  present  state  of  existence  is  concerned,) 
where  the  soul  is,  there  the  body  is,  so  in  like  manner,  where  the  Spirit 
is,  there  is  the  Church,  and  where  the  Spirit  is  not,  the  Church  is  not. 
The  motto  inscribed  on  the  banner  which  the  early  evangelical  fathers 
raised  against  the  assumption  of  ritualists  was,  Ubi  Spiritus  Dei, 
iBi  ECCLESiA.  That  banner  Popes  and  Prelatists,  Patriarchs  and 
Priests  have  for  a  thousand  years  striven  in  vain  to  trample  in  the 
dust.  It  has  been  handed  down  from  one  band  of  witnesses  for  the 
truth  to  another,  until  it  now  waves  over  all  evangelical  Christendom. 
The  dividing  line  between  the  two  great  contending  parties  in  the 
Church  universal,  is  precisely  this — Is  the  Church  in  its  essential  idea 
an  external  body  held  together  by  external  bonds,  so  that  membership 
in  the  Church  depends  on  submission  to  a  hierarchy  ?  or  is  it  a  spirit- 
ual body  owing  its  existence  and  unity  to  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit, 
so  that  those  who  have  the  Spirit  of  God  are  members  of  the  Church 
or  body  of  Christ?  The  Papists  say  we  are  not  in  the  Church,  be- 
cause we  are  not  subject  to  the  Pope ;  we  say  that  we  are  in  the 
Church  if  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwells  in  us.  Of  course  Dr.  Thornwell 
believes  all  this  as  firmly  as  we  do.    He  has  as  fully  and  clearly  avowed 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  121 

this  doctrine  as  any  man  among  us.     In  the  very  latest  published  pro- 
duction of  his  pen,  he  says  : 

"  The  idea  of  the  Church,  according  to  the  Reformed'  conception,  is  the  com- 
plete realization  of  the  decree  of  election.  It  is  the  whole  body  of  the  elect  con- 
sidered as  united  to  Christ  their  Head.  As  actually  existing  at  any  given  time, 
it  is  that  portion  of  the  elect  who  have  been  effectually  called  to  the  exercise  of 
faith,  and  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is,  in  other  words,  the  whole 
body  of  existing  believers.  According  to  this  conception,  none  are  capable  of 
being  Church  members  but  the  elect,  and  none  are  ever,  in  fact.  Church  members, 
but  those  who  are  truly  renewed.  The  Church  is,  therefore,  the  communion  of 
saints,  the  congregation  of  the  faithful,  the  assembly  of  those  who  worship  God  in 
the  Spirit,  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh.  That  this 
conception  is  fundamental  in  all  the  Reformed  Confessions,  and  among  all  the  Re- 
formed theologians  worthy  of  the  name,  we  will  not  insult  the  intelligence  of  our 
readers  by  stopping  to  prove.  The  Church  was  co-extensive  with  faith.  As  true 
faith  in  the  heart  will  manifest  itself  by  the  confession  of  the  mouth,  it  is  certain 
that  the  children  of  God,  wherever  they  have  the  opportunity,  will  be  found  pro- 
fessing their  faith ;  and  as  there  is  no  method  of  searching  the  heart,  and  dis- 
criminating real  from  false  professors  but  by  the  walk,  all  are  to  be  accepted  as 
true  believers  whose  lives  do  not  give  the  lie  to  their  pretensions.  The  body  of 
professors,  therefore,  is  to  be  accepted  as  the  Church  of  Christ,  because  the  truly 
faithful  are  in  it.  The  gospel  is  never  preached  without  converting  some— these 
will  profess  their  faith,  and  will  vindicate  to  any  society  the  name  of  a  Church. 
As  to  those  professors  who  are  destitute  of  faith,  they  are  not  properly  members 
of  the  Church  ;  they  are  wolves  among  sheep  ;  tares  among  the  wheat ;  warts  and 
excrescences  upon  the  body.  The  visible  Church  is,  accordingly,  the  society  or 
congregation  of  those  who  profess  the  true  religion ;  among  whom  the  gospel  is 
faithfully  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered.  And  it  is  simply  be- 
cause such  a  society  cannot  be  destitute  of  genuine  believers  that  it  is  entitled  to 
the  name  of  the  Church.  Profession  must  be  accepted  in  the  judgment  of  men 
as  equivalent  to  the  possession  of  faith,  and  the  body  of  professors  must  pass  for 
saints,  until  hypocrites  and  unbelievers  expose  themselves."  * 

This  is  the  idea  of  the  Church  almost  totidem  verbis,  which  was  pre- 
sented years  ago  in  this  journal.  Dr.  Thornvvell  derived  his  doctrine 
from  the  same  source  from  which  we  drew  ours,  viz.  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Confessions  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  and  writings  of  the  Re- 
formed theologians.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  was  presented  in  few 
words  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly,  where  it  was  stated  that 
the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  constitutes  the  Church,  so  that  where  the 
Spirit  is,  there  the  Church  is. 


It  has  been  strangely  inferred  that  if  we  hold  that  all  the  attributes 
*  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  for  April,  1860,  p.  15. 


122  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  prerogatives  of  tlie  Churcli  arise  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit, 
we  must  also  hold  that  nothing  relating  to  the  organization  of  the 
Church  is  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God.  It  might  as  well  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  the  soul  fashions  and  informs  the  human  body,  that 
the  body  may  at  one  time  have  the  form  of  a  man,  and  at  another,  the 
form  of  a  beast.  There  are  fixed  laws  assigned  by  God,  according  to 
which  all  healthful  and  normal  development  of  the  body  is  regulated. 
So  it  is  with  regard  to  the  Church,  There  are  fixed  laws  in  the  Bible, 
according  to  which  all  healthful  development  and  action  of  the  external 
Church  are  determined.  But  as  within  the  limits  of  the  laws  which 
control  the  development  of  the  human  body,  there  is  endless  diversity 
among  different  races,  adapting  them  to  different  climes  and  modes  of 
living,  so  also  in  the  Church.  It  is  not  tied  down  to  one  particular 
mode  of  organization  and  action,  at  all  times  and  under  all  circum- 
Btances.  Even  with  regard  to  doctrinal  truth,  we  may  hold  that  the 
Spirit  dwells  in  the  believer  as  a  divine  teacher,  and  that  all  true  di- 
vine knowledge  comes  from  his  inward  illumination,  without  denying 
that  a  divine,  authoritative  rule  of  faith  is  laid  down  in  the  word  of 
God,  which  it  is  impossible  the  inward  teaching  of  the  Spirit  should 
ever  contradict.  We  may  believe  that  the  indwelling  Spirit  guides  the 
children  of  God  in  the  path  of  duty,  without  at  all  questioning  the 
authority  of  the  moral  law  as  revealed  in  the  Bible.  A  Christian, 
however,  may  believe  and  do  a  thousand  things  not  taught  or  com- 
manded in  the  Scriptures.  He  cannot  rightfully  believe  or  do  anything 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  but  while  faithful  to  their  teachings  and 
precepts,  he  has  a  wide  field  of  liberty  of  thought  and  action.  It  is  pre- 
cisely so  with  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  Church.  There  are 
certain  things  prescribed,  to  which  every  Church  ought  to  conform,  and 
many  things  as  to  which  she  is  at  liberty  to  act  as  she  deems  best  for 
God's  glory,  and  the  advancement  of  his  kingdom.  All  we  contend 
for  is  that  everything  is  not  prescribed ;  that  every  mode  of  organiza- 
tion or  action  is  not  either  commanded  or  forbidden ;  that  we  must 
produce  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  for  every  thing  the  Church  does. 
"We  must  indeed  be  able  to  produce  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  for 
everything,  whether  a  truth,  or  a  duty,  or  a  mode  of  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganization or  action,  which  we  make  obligatory  on  the  conscience  of 
other  men.  But  our  liberty  of  faith  and  action  beyond  the  prescrip- 
tions of  the  word  of  God,  is  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  has  made  us 
free,  and  which  no  man  shall  take  from  us. 

What  we  hold,  therefore,  is,  that  the  leading  principles  thus  laid 
down  in  Scripture  regarding  the  organization  and  action  of  the 
Church,  are  the  parity  of  the  clergy,  the  right  of  the  people,  and  the 
unity  of  the  Church.     With  respect  to  these  principles,  two  things 


PRESBYTEEIANISM.  123 

were  asserted  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly.  First,  that  they  are  jure 
divino.  That  is,  that  they  are  clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
intended  to  be  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation.  By  this  is  not 
meant  either  that  they  are  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  for 
nothing  can  be  essential  to  the  Church  which  is  not  essential  to  salva- 
tion :  nor  is  it  meant  that  these  principles  may  not,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, be  less  developed  or  called  into  action  than  in  others. 
The  right  of  the  people,  for  examj)le,  to  take  part  in  the  governmenv 
of  the  Church,  may  be  admitted,  and  yet  the  exercise  of  that  right  be 
limited  by  the  ability  to  exercise  it.  We  do  not  deny  the  right  of  the 
people  in  civil  matters,  when  we  deny  the  exercise  of  that  right  to 
minors,  to  felons,  or  to  idiots.  The  other  position  assumed  was,  that 
the  three  principles  just  mentioned  are  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Presbyterianism,  in  such  sense  as  that  those  who  hold  those  principles 
in  their  true  intent  are  Presbyterians,  and  that  those  who  deny  them 
forfeit  their  claim  to  be  so  regarded.  • 

That  the  above-mentioned  principles  are,  in  the  sense  stated,  jure 
dii-ino,  may  be  proved,  as  we  think,  in  very  few  words.  If  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  dwelling  in  the  Church,"  is  the  source  of  its  several  preroga- 
tives, it  follows  that  there  can  be  no  offices  in  the  Oiurch,  of  divine 
authority,  to  which  he  does  not  call  its  members  by  imparting  to  them 
the  appropriate  gift.  The  apostle  informs  us,  that  the  Spirit  distributes 
his  gifts  to  each  one  as  he  wills.  Apart  from  those  sanctifying  influ- 
ences common  to  all  the  children  of  God,  by  which  they  are  incorpo- 
rated into  the  body  of  Christ,  he  made  some  apostles,  some  prophets, 
some  evangelists,  some  pastors  and  teachers.  Some  had  the  gift  of 
speaking  with  tongues,  others  the  gift  of  healing,  others  the  gift  of 
miracles,  others  of  government,  others  of  helpers.  Of  these  offices 
thus  created,  some  were  extraordinary  and  temporary,  others  perma- 
nent. Of  those  connected  with  the  ministry  of  the  word,  were  the 
apostles,  prophets,  and  presbyters.  The  question,  therefore,  whether 
there  is  any  permanent  class  or  order  of  ministers  higher  than  these 
presbyters,  depends  on  the  question,  whether  the  apostolic  ^ud  pro- 
phetic offices  were  permanent  or  temporary.  It  is  admitted  that  in 
the  apostolic  Church  the  apostles  and  prophets  were  superior  to  pres- 
byters. If,  therefore,  we  have  now  apostles  and  prophets  in  the 
Church,  then  there  are  still  two  orders  of  the  clergy  above  ordinary 
ministers.  But  if  there  are  now  no  such  offices,  then  the  parity  of  the 
clergy  is  a  necessary  consequence.  That  the  apostolic  and  prophetic 
offices  were  temporary,  is  rendered  certain  from  the  fact  that  the  pecu- 
liar gifts  which  made  an  apostle  or  a  prophet  are  no  longer  imparted. 
An  apostle  was  a  man  endued  with  plenary  knowledge  of  the  gospel  by 
immediate  revelation;  and  who  was  rendered  infallible  in  the  communi- 


124  CHURCH  POLITY. 

cation  of  that  knowledge  by  the  gift  of  inspiration.  A  prophet  was  a 
man  who  received  partial  revelations  and  occasional  inspiration. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  stop  to  prove  that  such  were  the 
gifts  of  the  apostles  and  prophets.  It  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  they 
claimed  them,  that  they  exercised  them,  that  their  claim  was  divinely 
authenticated  and  universally  admitted,  and  that  the  possession  of  those 
gifts  was  essential  to  their  authority  as  teachers  and  rulers,  to  which 
all  men  were  required  to  submit  on  the  pain  of  perdition.  It  requires 
no  proof  that  these  gifts  are  no  longer  possessed  by  any  order  of  men  in 
the  Church,  and  therefore  it  requires  no  further  proof  that  the  apostolic 
and  prophetic  offices  are  no  longer  extant.  This  conclusion  as  to  the 
temporary  nature  of  those  offices  is  confirmed :  1.  By  the  considera- 
tion that  there  is  no  command  to  continue  them.  2.  That  there  is  no 
specification  of  the  qualifications  to  be  required  in  those  who  sought 
them.  3.  That  there  is  no  record  of  their  continuation.  They  disap- 
peared from  the  stage  of  history  as  completely  as  the  prophets,  judges, 
and  high  priests  of  the  Old  Testament  economy.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  gifts  of  teaching  and  ruling,  which  constituted  a  presbyter,  are 
continued ;  the  command  to  ordain  such  officers  is  on  record ;  their 
qualifications  are  minutely  laid  down  ;  the  account  of  their  appoint- 
ment is  found  in  the  Scripture,  and  they  continue  in  unbroken  succes- 
sion wherever  the  Church  is  found.  These  presbyters  are  therefore 
the  highest  permanent  officers  of  the  Church  for  which  we  have  any 
divine  warrant.  If  the  Church,  for  special  reasons,  sees  fit  to  appoint 
any  higher  order,  such  as  are  found  in  bishops  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  Europe,  and  in  the  superintendents,  clothed  with  presbyterial  power 
(i.  e.,  the  powers  of  a  presbytery.)  in  the  early  Church  of  Scotland, 
this  is  merely  a  human  arrangement.  The  parity  of  the  clergy  is  a 
matter  of  divine  right.  They  all  hold  the  same  office,  and  have  the 
same  rights,  so  far  as  they  depend  on  divine  appointment. 

As  to  the  right  of  the  people  to  take  part  in  the  government  of  the 
Church,  this  also  is  a  divine  right.  This  follows  because  the  Spirit  of 
God,  Avli,o  is  the  source  of  all  power,  dwells  in  the  people,  and  not  exclu- 
sively in  the  clergy ;  because  we  are  commanded  to  submit  ourselves  to 
our  brethren  in  the  Lord  ;  because  the  people  are  commanded  to  exercise 
this  power,  and  are  upbraided  when  unfaithful  or  negligent  in  the  dis- 
charge of  this  duty ;  because  the  gift  of  governing  or  ruling  is  a  perma- 
nent gift ;  and  because,  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  brethren  in 
the  actual  recognized  exercise  of  the  authority  in  question,  which  was 
never  disputed  in  the  Church  until  the  beginning  of  the  dark  ages. 
This  right  of  the  people  must,  of  necessity,  be  exercised  through  repre- 
sentatives. Although  it  might  be  possible  in  a  small  congregation  for 
the  brotherhood  to  act  immediately,  yet  in  such  a  city  as  Jerusalem, 


PEESBYTERIANISM.  125 

where  there  were  five  or  ten  thousand  believers,  it  was  impossible  that 
government  or  discipline  should  be  administered  by  the  Avhole  body  of 
Christians.  And  when  the  Churches  of  a  province,  or  of  a  nation,  or 
of  all  Christendom,  united  for  the  decision  of  questions  of  general  inter- 
est, the  people  must  appear  by  their  representatives  or  not  appear  at 
all.  Under  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  assembly  or  congregation  of 
the  people,  in  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  Sanhedrim,  this  principle  of 
representation  was  by  divine  appointment  universally  recognized.  By 
like  authority  it  was  introduced  into  the  Christian  Church  as  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  its  organization.  This  is  the  broad,  scriptural  jure 
divino  foundation  of  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  an  officer  who  appears 
with  the  same  credentials,  and  with  equal  authority  as  the  minister  in 
all  our  church-courts,  from  the  session  to  the  General  Assembly.  The 
third  principle  above-mentioned  is  the  unity  of  the  Church.  This 
unity  is  not  merely  a  union  of  faith  and  of  communion ;  not  merely  a 
fellowship  in  the  Spirit,  but  a  union  of  subjection,  so  that  one  part  is 
subject  to  a  larger,  and  a  larger  to  the  whole.  This  also  is  jure  divino. 
1.  Because  the  whole  Church  is  made  one  by  the  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit.  2.  Because  we  are  commanded  to  be  subject  to  our  brethren. 
The  ground  of  this  subjection  is  not  proximity  in  space,  nor  a  mutual 
covenant  or  agreement,  but  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  our  brethren, 
and,  therefore,  it  extends  to  all  brethren.  3.  Because  in  the  apostolic, 
as  in  the  Old  Testament  Church,  the  whole  body  of  professors  of  the 
true  religion  were  thus  united  as  one  body.  4.  Because  by  the  instinct 
of  Christian  feeling  the  Church  in  all  ages  has  striven  after  this  union 
of  subjection,  and  recognized  its  violation  as  inconsistent  with  the  law 
of  its  constitution.  This,  again,  by  necessity  and  divine  appointment 
is  a  representative  union,  and  hence  the  provincial,  national  and  oecu- 
menical councils  which  mark  the  whole  history  of  the  Church.  "We 
hold,  therefore,  to  a  jure  divino  form  of  Church  government;  so  far  as 
these  principles  go. 

The  second  position  assumed  in  reference  to  the  points  above  stated 
was,  that  those  principles  constitute  the  true  idea  of  Presbyterianism. 
Dr.  Thornwell's  second  speech  was  devoted  to  ridiculing  and  refuting 
that  position.  He  objected  to  it  as  altogether  illogical.  It  was  a  defi- 
nition, he  said,  without  any  single  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  sub- 
ject. Let  us  look,  he  said,  at  these  principles.  1st.  Parity  of  the 
clergy.  Why,  sir,  this  is  not  a  distinctive  mark  of  Presbytery.  All 
the  evangelical  sects  except  the  Episcopal  hold  to  it.  2d.  The  power  of 
the  people.  That  is  not  distinctive  of  Presbyterianism.  The  Cougre- 
gationalists  carry  this  further  than  we  do.  3d.  The  unity  of  the 
Church.  Is  this  peculiar  to  us?  Is  it  a  peculiar  element  of  our  sys- 
tem ?     Rome  holds  it  with  a  vehemence  which  we  do  not  insist  upon. 


126  CHURCH  POLITY. 

"That  Presbyterian  ism ! "  lie  exclaimed,  "  a  little  of  everything  and 
anything,  but  nothing  distinctive." 

This  is  extraordinary  logic.  And  the  more  extraordinary,  consid- 
ering that  Dr.  Thornwell  had  just  informed  the  Assembly  that  he  had 
studied  Aristotle,  and  every  other  great  master  of  the  science ;  that  he 
had  probably  the  largest  private  library  of  works  in  that  departn^jent 
in  the  country,  and  felt  prepared  to  measure  swords  on  that  field  with 
any  man  alive.  AVe  do  not  question  either  his  learning  or  his  skill. 
We  only  know  that  the  merest  tyro,  with  logic  or  without  it,  can  see 
the  fallacy  of  his  argument.  He  assumes  that  the  only  mode  of  definition 
is  to  state  the  genus  of  the  subject  and  its  specific  diflTerence.  Thus 
we  define  God  by  saying  that  he  is  a  Spirit,  which  states  the  genus,  or 
class  of  beings  to  which  he  belongs ;  and  we  distinguish  him  from  all 
other  spirits  by  saying  he  is  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable.  An- 
other method,  however,  equally  legitimate  and  equally  common,  is  to 
enumerate  the  attributes  of  the  subject  which  complete  or  individualize 
the  idea.  We  may  define  man  to  be  a  rational  creature,  invested  with 
a  material  body.  Should  any  professor  of  logic  ridicule  this  definition, 
and  say  it  includes  nothing  distinctive,  he  would  only  show  that  his 
logic  was  in  abeyance.  Should  he  imitate  Dr.  Thornwell,  he  would 
say,  "  Rationality  is  no  distinctive  characteristic  of  man.  God,  angels, 
and  demons  are  all  rational.  Neither  is  a  dependent  created  nature 
such  a  characteristic.  There  are  other  creatures  in  the  universe  besides 
man.  Nor  is  the  possession  of  an  organized  body  anything  peculiar. 
Birds  and  beasts  have  bodies.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  little  of  every- 
thing and  anything,  and  nothing  peculiar.  Is  that  a  man  ?  "  Never- 
theless, so  long  as,  in  the  sphere  of  our  knowledge,  man  is  the  only 
rational  creature  invested  with  a  living  body,  the  above  definition  is 
perfectly  logical,  all  the  followers  of  the  Stagirite  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  Now,  as  the  principles  above  stated,  the  parity  of 
the  clergy,  the  right  of  the  people  to  a  substantive  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  and  the  subjection  of  one  part  of  the  Church  to  a 
larger,  and  a  larger  to  the  whole,  are  recognized  by  Presbyterians, 
and  are  not  found  among  Papists,  Prelatists,  and  Independents,  or  any 
other  historical  body  of  Christians,  they  are,  in  their  combination,  the 
characteristic  or  distinguishing  features  of  the  Presbyterian  system. 

Dr.  Thornwell  stated  his  own  as  an  antagonistic  theory  of  Presby- 
terianism.  1.  That  the  Church  is  governed  by  representative  assem- 
blies. 2.  Those  assemblies  include  two  houses,  or  two  elements,  the 
preaching  and  ruling  elder.  3.  The  parity  of  the  eldership,  all  elders, 
preaching  and  ruling,  appearing  in  our  Church  courts  with  the  same 
credentials,  and  having  the  same  rights.  4.  The  unity  of  the  Church, 
as  realized  in  the  representative  principle. 


PEESBYTEEIANISM.  127 


Every  one  of  his  four  principles  is  involved  in  those  stated  on  the 
other  side.  1.  The  principle  of  representation,  as  A\e  have  seen,  is  of 
necessity  included  in  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  the 
subjection  of  a  part  to  the  whole.  This  theory  can  be  carried  out  only 
through  representative  assemblies.  2.  The  union  of  two  elements  in 
these  Church  courts  is*  also  embraced  in  the  assertion  of  the  right  of 
the  people  to  take  part  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  for  this  right 
can  only  be  exercised  through  their  representatives  sitting  as  consti- 
tuent elements  in  ecclesiastical  courts.  3.  The  parity  of  the  elders 
and  ministers  in  these  representative  assemblies,  is  also  included  in  the 
one  system  as  well  as  in  others.  4.  The  unity  of  the  Church  was 
avowed  on  both  sides,  and  was  not  claimed  as  peculiar  to  either.  This 
is  not  an  after  thought.  All  these  principles  were  presented  years  ago, 
in  the  tract,  "  What  is  Presbyterianisra  ?  "  and  shown  to  be  involved 
in  those  which  Dr.  Thornwell  repudiated  as  any  just  description  of 
our  system. 

The  true  peculiarities  of  the  new  theory,  Dr.  Thornwell  left  out  of 
view  in  his  rejoinder.  Those  principles  are,  1.  A  new  doctrine  con- 
cerning ruling  elders.  2.  The  doctrine  that  all  power  in  the  Church 
is  joint  and  not  several.  3.  That  every  thing  not  prescribed  in  Scrip- 
ture is  forbidden.  We  shall  say  a  few  words  on  each  of  these  points 
in  their  order. 

First,  as  to  the  eldership.  There  are  only  two  radically  dijSerent 
theories  on  this  subject.  According  to  the  one,  the  ruling  elder  is  a 
layman ;  according  to  the  other,  he  is  a  clergyman.  According  to  the 
former,  he  belongs  to  a  different  order  from  the  minister,  holds  a  dif- 
ferent office,  has  a  different  vocation  and  ordination.  He  is  not  a 
bishop,  pastor,  or  teacher,  but  officially  a  ruler.  According  to  the 
latter,  the  reverse  is  true.  The  ruling  elder  belongs  to  the  same  order 
mth  the  minister.  He  is  a  bishop,  pastor,  teacher,  and  ruler.  This 
is  all  the  minister  is.  They  have,  therefore,  the  same  office,  and  differ 
only  as  to  their  functions,  as  a  professor  differs  from  a  pastor,  or  a 
missionary  from  a  settled  minister.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  point 
of  difference  between  these  theories  is  not  the  importance  of  the  office 
of  ruling  elder,  nor  its  divine  warrant.  According  to  both  views,  the 
office  is  jure  dlvino.  The  Spirit  who  calls  one  man  to  be  a  minister 
calls  another  to  be  an  elder.  The  one  office  is  as  truly  from  Christ  as 
the  other.  Nor  do  the  theories  differ  as  to  the  parity  of  elders  and 
ministers  in  our  Church  courts.  Both  enter  those  courts  with  the 
same  credentials,  and  have  the  same  right  to  sit,  deliberate  and  deter- 
mine.    The  vote  of  the  one  avails  as  much  as  that  of  the  other.     On 


128  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

all  these  points,  the  theories  agree.  The  point  of  difference  between 
them  which  is  radical,  affecting  the  whole  character  of  our  system,  re- 
lates to  the  nature  of  the  office  of  the  ruling  elder.  Is  he  a  clergyman, 
a  bishop  ?  or  is  he  a  layman  ?  Does  he  hold  the  same  office  with  the 
minister,  or  a  different  one  ?  According  to  the  new  theory  the  offices 
are  identified.  Everything  said  of  presbyters  in  the  New  Testam'ent, 
this  theory  applies  equally  to  elders  and  ministers  of  the  word.  What 
constitutes  identity  of  office,  if  it  be  not  identity  of  official  titles,  of 
qualifications,  of  vocations,  of  duties,  of  ordinations  ?  This  new  doc- 
trine makes  all  elders,  bishops,  pastors,  teachers,  and  rulers.  It  applies 
all  directions  as  to  the  qualifications  and  duties,  as  to  election  and  or- 
dination of  presbyters,  as  much  to  the  ruling  elder  as  to  the  minister 
of  the  word.  It  therefore  destroys  all  official  distinction  between  them. 
It  reduces  the  two  to  one  order,  class,  or  office.  The  one  has  as  much 
right  to  preach,  ordain,  and  administer  the  sacraments,  as  the  other. 
The  conclusion  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  avoided  on  the  theory 
that  elders  are  pastors,  bishops,  and  teachers,  in  the  same  sense  with 
ministers. 

The  first  objection  to  this  theory  is  that  it  is  entirely  contrary  to  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  especially  of 
our  own.  In  those  Churches  the  ruling  elder  is  a  layman.  He  has  a 
different  office  from  the  minister.  He  has  different  gifts,  different 
training,  duties,  prerogatives,  and  ordination.  The  one  is  ordained  by 
the  minister,  the  other  by  the  Presbytery.  The  one  ministers  in  the 
word  and  sacraments,  the  other  does  not.  The  one  is  appointed  spe- 
cially to  teach  and  to  preach  the  gospel ;  the  other  to  take  part  in  the 
discipline  and  government  of  the  Church. 

Secondly,  in  thus  destroying  the  peculiarity  of  the  office,  its  value  is 
destroyed.  It  is  precisely  because  the  ruling  elder  is  a  layman,  that 
he  is  a  real  power,  a  distinct  element  in  our  system.  The  moment 
you  dress  him  in  canonicals,  you  destroy  his  power,  and  render  him 
ridiculous.  It  is  because  he  is  not  a  clergyman,  it  is  because  he  is  one 
of  the  people,  engaged  in  the  ordinary  business  of  life,  separated  from 
the  professional  class  of  ministers,  that  he  is  what  he  is  in  our  Church 
courts.  Thirdly,  This  theory  reduces  the  government  of  the  Church  to 
a  clerical  despotism.  Dr.  Thornwell  ridiculed  this  idea.  He  called 
it  an  argument  ad  captandum.  He  said  it  was  equal  in  absurdity  to 
the  argument  of  a  hard-shell  Baptist,  who  proved  that  his  sect  would 
universally  prevail,  from  the  text,  "  The  voice  of  the  turtle  shall  be 
heard  in  all  the  land."  Turtles,  said  the  Hard-shell,  are  to  be 
seen  sitting  upon  logs  in  all  the  streams,  and  as  you  pass,  they  plunge 
into  the  water,  therefore,  all  men  will  do  the  same.  Such,  said 
Dr.  Thornwell,  was  the  logic  of  the  brother  from  Princeton.     What- 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  ]^29 

ever  may  be  thought  of  the  wit  of  this  illustration,  we  cannot  see 
that  it  proves  much.  Does  it  prove  that  all  power  in  our  Church 
is  not  in  the  hands  of  ministers  and  elders  ?  and  if  elders  and  ministers 
are  all  alike  bishops  and  teachers,  all  of  the  same  order,  all  clergymen, 
does  it  not  follow  that  all  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy  ?  But, 
says  Dr.  Thornwell,  the  people  choose  these  elders.  What  of  that  ? 
Suppose  slaves  had  a  right  to  choose  (under  a  veto,)  their  own  masters, 
would  they  not  be  slaves  still  ?  If,  according  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  President,  senators,  representatives,  heads  of  depart- 
ments, judges,  piarshals,  all  naval  and  military  men  holding  commis- 
sions, in  short,  all  officers  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  (except  over- 
seers of  the  poor,)  must  be  clergymen,  every  one  would  see  and  feel 
that  all  power  was  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy.  It  would  avail  little 
that  the  people  choose  these  clergymen,  if  the  clergy  had  the  sole  right 
to  ordain,  that  is,  to  admit  into  their  order.  All  power,  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial,  would  be  in  their  hands,  the  right  of  election 
notwithstanding.  This  is  the  government  which  the  new  theory  would 
introduce  into  the  Church.  This  doctrine  is,  therefore,  completely  revo- 
lutionary. It  deprives  the  people  of  all  substantive  power.  The  legis- 
lative, judicial,  and  executive  power,  according  to  our  system,  is  in 
Church  courts,  and  if  these  courts  are  to  be  composed  entirely  of  cler- 
gymen, and  are  close,  self-perpetuating  bodies,  then  we  have,  or  we 
should  have,  as  complete  a  clerical  domination  as  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  our  fathers,  and  especially  the  late 
Dr.  Miller,  did  not  hold  any  such  doctrine  as  this.  There  was  no  man 
in  the  Church  more  opposed  to  this  theory  than  that  venerable  man, 
whose  memory  we  have  so  much  reason  to  cherish  with  affectionate 
reverence.  We  do  not  differ  from  Dr.  Miller  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
office  of  the  ruling  elder.  The  only  point  of  difference  between  him 
and  us  relates  to  the  method  of  establishing  the  divine  warrant  for  the 
office.  He  laid  stress  on  one  argument,  we  on  another.  That  is  all. 
As  to  the  importance,  nature,  and  divine  institution  of  the  office,  we 
are  faithful  to  his  instructions. 

It  is  only  as  to  the  point  just  indicated  that  we  could  sanction  dis- 
sent from  the  teachings  of  our  venerated  and  lamented  colleague. 

Dr.  Thornwell  himself,  in  the  last  extremity,  said  that  he  did  not 
hold  the  new  theory.  Then  he  has  no  controversy  with  us,  nor  we 
with  him,  so  far  as  the  eldership  is  concerned.  The  dispute  is  reduced 
to  a  mere'logomachy,  if  the  only  question  is,  whether  the  ruling  elder  is 
a  presbyter.  Dr.  Thornwell  asked.  If  he  is  not  a  presbyter,  what 
right  has  he  in  the  Presbytery  ?  You  might  as  well,  he  said,  put  any 
other  good  man  there.  It  is  on  all  sides  admitted  that  in  the  New 
9 


130  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Testament  the  presbyters  are  bishops — how  then  are  we  to  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  the  ruling  elder  is  a  bishop,  and  theMore  the  same  in 
office  as  the  minister,  and  the  one  as  much  a  clergyman  as  the  other  ? 
This  is  the  dilemma  in  which,  as  we  understood,  Dr.  Thornwell  en- 
deavoured to  place  Dr.  Hodge,  when  he  asked  him,  on  the  floor  of 
the  Assembly,  whether  he  admitted  that  the  elder  was  a  presbyter. 
Dr.  Hodge  rejoined  by  asking  Dr.  Thornwell  whether  he  admitted 
that  the  apostles  were  deacons.  He  answered.  No.  But,  says  Dr. 
Hodge,  Paul  says  he  was  a  dcdy.o'^og.  O,  says  Dr.  Thornwell,  that  was 
in  the  general  sense  of  the  word.  Precisely  so.  If  the  answer  is  good 
in  the  one  case,  it  is  good  in  the  other.  If  the  apostles  being  deacons 
in  the  wide  sense  of  the  word,  does  not  prove  that  they  were  officially 
deacons,  then  that  elders  are  presbyters  in  the  one  sense,  does  not  prove 
them  to  be  presbyters  in  the  other  sense.  We  hold,  with  Calvin,  that 
the  official  presbyters  of  the  New  Testament  were  bishops ;  i'or,  as  he 
says,  "  Quiciimque  verbi  viinisterio  funguntur,  iis  titulum  episcoporum 
lScrip)tura]  tr%iiit."  But  of  the  ruling  elders,  he  adds,  "  Gubernatores 
fuisse  existimo  seniores  ex  p^e6<3  deledos,  qui  censurce  morum  et  ex- 
ereendce  disciplince  una  cum  episcopis  prccessent."  Institutio,  &c.  IV.  3. 
8.  This  is  the  old,  healthful,  conservative  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Ministers  of  the  word  are  clergymen,  having  special  training, 
vocation,  and  ordination  ;  ruling  elders  are  laymen,  chosen  from  the 
people  as  their  representatives,  having,  by  divine  warrant,  equal  au- 
,  thority  in  all  Church  courts  with  the  ministers. 

The  second  point  of  difference  between  the  new  and  old  theories  of 
Presbyteriauism  is,  that  all  power  in  the  Church  is  joint,  and  not 
several.  The  objection  to  this  doctrine  is  simply  to  the  word  all.  It 
is  admitted,  and  always  has  been  admitted,  that  the  ordinary  exercise 
of  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  authority  of  the  Church,  is  in 
Church_courts ;  according  to  our  system,  in  Sessions,  Presbyteries, 
Synods,  and  Assembly.  About  this  there  is  no  dispute.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  contended,  that  according  to  the  theory  and  practice 
of  our  own,  and  of  all  other  Presbyterian  bodies,  ordination  to  the 
sacred  office  confers  the  power  or  authority  not  only  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel, but  to  collect  and  organize  Churches,  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  in  the  absence  of  a  session,  to  decide  on  the  qualifications  of  candi- 
dates for  admission  to  those  ordinances ;  and  when  need  be,  to  ordain, 
as  is  done  in  the  case  of  ruling  elders.  This  is  a  power  which  our 
ministers  and  missionaries  have,  and  always  must  exercise.  It  can 
never  be  denied  by  any  who  are  not  the  slaves,  instead  of  being  the 
masters  of  logic.     On  this  point  it  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge. 

The  third  point  of  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  the  extent 
to  which  the  liberty  of  the  Church  extends  in  matters  of  government 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  131 

and  modes  of  operation.  According  to  the  old,  and  especially  the 
genuine  American  form  of  Presbyterianism,  while  it  is  admitted  that 
there  is  a  form  of  government  prescribed  or  instituted  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, so  far  as  its  general  principles  or  features  are  concerned,  there 
is  a  wide  discretion  allowed  us  by  God,  in  matters  of  detail,  which  no 
man  or  set  of  men,  which  neither  civil  magistrates  nor  ecclesiastical 
rulers,  can  take  from  us.  This  is  part  of  that  liberty  with  which 
Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  in  which  we  are  commanded  to  stand 
fast.  The  other  doctrine  is  the  opposite  of  this.  It  is,  that  every 
thing  that  is  lawful  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  Church  is  to  be  or- 
ganized, and  as  to  the  methods  which  she  is  to  adopt  in  carrying  on, 
her  work,  is  feidhdown_in^cripture.  It  is  not  enough  that  it  is  not 
forbidden  ;  it  is  not  enough  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
laid  down  in  the  word  of  God.  Unless  it  is  actually  commanded,  un- 
less we  can  put  our  finger  on  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  its  support, 
it  is  unlawful.  God,  it  was  said,  has  given  the  Church  a  particular 
organization,  a  definite  number  of  oflEices,  courts,  organs,  agencies;  and 
for  us  to  introduce  any  other,  or  even  any  new  combinations,  is  an 
indignity  to  him,  and  to  his  word.  On  this  ground,  as  we  have  said, 
the  Boards  were  pronounced  unscriptural.  Their  abrogation  was  made 
a  matter  of  duty.  It  was  urged  upon  our  conscience  as  demanded  by 
our  allegiance  to  God.  It  is  our  firm  belief  that  there  were  not  six  men 
in  the  Assembly  who  held  this  doctrine.  There  were  sixty  who  voted 
for  some  organic  change  in  the  Boards,  but  so  far  as  we  know,  there 
were  only  two  Avho  took  the  ground  of  this  superlative  high-churchisra. 
It  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  universal,  to  the  whole  character  of  Protestantism, 
and  especially  of  our  Presbyterianism ;  it  is  so  preposterous  and  suicidal, 
that  we  have  no  more  fear  of  its  prevalence  among  us,  than  that  the 
freemen  of  this  country  will  become  the  advocates  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings.  We  have  no  intention  of  discussing  this  question  at  length, 
which  we  deem  altogether  unnecessary.  We  shall  content  ourselves 
with  a  few  remarks  on  two  aspects  of  the  case. 

In  the  first  place,  this  theory  never  has  been,  nor  can  be  carried  out, 
even  by  its  advocates.  Consistency  would  require  them  to  repudiate 
all  organizations,  not  Boards  only,  but  Committees  also,  and  confine 
the  joint  agency  of  the  Church  to  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  Synods  and 
General  Assemblies.  They  hold  these  only  to  be  divinely  instituted 
organs  for  joint  action.  And  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  if  these  be  de- 
parted from,  or  if  other  agencies  be  adopted,  the  whole  principle  is 
given  up.  Accordingly,  the  first  ground  assumed  by  the  advocates  of 
the  new  theory,  was  that  missionary  operations  could  be  carried  on 
only  by  the  Presbyteries.     The  law  of  God  was  said  to  forbid  every- 


132  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tiling  else.  "When  this  was  found  impracticable,  then  it  was  discovered 
that  a  board  or  court  of  deacons,  was  the  divinely  instituted  agency, 
and  the  word  of  God  was  made  to  forbid  any  other.  This,  however, 
■would  not  go.  Then  followed  other  discoveries,  and  at  last  it  was  found 
out  that  a  committee  was  the  thing.  God  permits  a  committee,  but  to 
institute  a  board  is  an  act  of  rebellion.  But  what  is  the  difference  ? 
A  committee  is  no  more  commanded  than  a  board.  The  one  is  as 
much  a  delegated  body  as  the  other.  Both  continue  as  a  living  organ- 
ism after  the  Assembly  appointing  them  is  dissolved  and  dead.  We 
were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Church  Extension  as  an  illustration 
of  the  radical  difference  between  the  two  organizations.  The  only  dif- 
ference, however,  is  that  one  is  larger  than  the  other.  There  is  not  a 
single  principle  involved  in  the  one,  which  is  not  involved  also  in  the 
other. 

It  may  be  said,  and  it  was  said  in  the  last  extremity,  that  an  execu- 
tive committee  apj)ointed  directly  by  the  Assembly,  is  a  simpler  device 
than  a  board,  and  that  the  Church  is  limited  in  her  choice  of  agencies 
to  what  is  absolutely  necessary.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  an  ad- 
mission that  everything  necessary  is  not  prescribed  in  Scripture  which 
is  contrary  to  the  theory.  In  the  second  place,  the  Committee  of 
Church  Extension,  which  was  held  up  as  the  model,  is  not  the  simplest 
possible,  by  a  great  deal.  A  single  executive  officer  is  a  simpler  device 
than  an  executive  committee,  and  much  more  so  than  a  committee  of 
thirty  or  forty  members.  In  the  third  place,  when  it  is  said  we  are 
forbidden  to  adopt  any  means  not  absolutely  necessary,  the  question 
arises,  Necessary  for  what?  For  doing  the  work?  or,  for  doing  it  in 
the  best  and  most  eflfectual  manner.  If  the  latter,  which  is  the  only 
rational  view  of  the  matter,  then  again  the  whole  principle  is  aban- 
doned ;  for  it  must  rest  with  the  judgment  of  the  Church  to  decide 
what  measures  are  best  adapted  for  her  purpose,  and  this  is  all  the  dis- 
cretion any  body  desires.  It  is  obvious  that  the  j^rinciple  advocated  by 
these  brethren  is  one  which  they  themselves  cannot  carry  out.  The 
Church  is  getting  tired  of  such  hair-splitting.  She  is  impatient  of 
being  harassed  and  impeded  in  her  great  operations  by  such  abstrac- 
tions. If,  however,  the  principle  in  question  could  be  carried  out,  what 
would  be  the  consequence?  Of  course  we  could  have  no  Church- 
schools,  colleges,  or  theological  seminaries ;  no  appliances  for  the  edu- 
cation of  the  heathen,  such  as  all  Churches  have  found  it  necessary  to 
adopt.  The  boards  of  directors  of  our  Seminaries  must  be  given  up. 
No  one  pretends  that  they  are  commanded  in  Scripture,  or  that  they 
are  absolutely  necessary  to  the  education  of  the  ministry.  We  had 
educated  ministers  before  Seminaries  were  thought  of.  So  far  as  we 
heard,  not  a  word  was  said  in  the  Assembly  in  answer  to  this  argumen- 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  I33 

turn  ad  hominem.  The  brethren  who  denounced  the  Board  of  Missions 
as  unscriptural,  had  nothing  to  say  against  the  boards  of  the  Semina- 
ries. Any  one  sees,  however,  that  if  the  one  is  unlawful,  the  others 
must  be. 

The  grand  objection  urged  against  this  new  theory,  the  one  which 
shows  it  to  be  not  only  inconsistent  and  impracticable,  but  intolerable, 
was,  that  it  is,  in  plain  English,  nothing  more  or  less  than  a  device  for 
clothing  human  opinions  with  divine  authority.  The  law  of  God  was 
made  to  forbid  not  only  what  it  says,  but  what  may  be  inferred  from 
it.  We  grant  that  what  a  man  infers  from  the  word  of  God  binds  his 
own  conscience.  But  the  trouble  is,  that  he  insists  that  it  shall  bind 
mine  also.  We  begged  to  be  excused.  No  man  may  make  himself 
the  lord  of  my  conscience,  much  less  will  any  man  be  allowed  to  make 
himself  lord  of  the  conscience  of  the  Church.  One  man  infers  one 
thing,  another  a  different,  from  the  Bible.  The  same  man  infers  one 
thing  to-day,  and  another  thing  to-morrow.  Must  the  Church  bow  her 
neck  to  all  these  burdens?  She  would  soon  be  more  trammelled  tliaa 
the  Church  in  the  wilderness,  with  this  infinite  difference,  the  Church 
of  old  was  measurably  restricted  by  fetters  which  God  himself  im- 
posed ;  the  plan  now  is  to  bind  her  with  fetters  which  human  logic  or 
caprice  forges.     This  she  will  never  submit  to. 

Dr.  Thornwell  told  us  that  the  Puritans  rebelled  against  the  doctrine 
that  what  is  not  forbidden  in  Sci'ipture  is  allowable.  It  was  against  the 
theory  of  liberty  of  discretion,  he  said,  our  fathers  raised  their  voices 
and  their  arms.  We  always  had  a  different  idea  of  the  matter.  We 
supposed  that  it  was  in  resistance  to  this  very  doctrine  of  inferences 
they  poured  out  their  blood  like  water.  In  their  time,  men  inferred 
from  Romans  xiii.  1,  ("  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  pow- 
ers. Whosoever  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God  ; 
and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  lo  themselves  damnation,")  the  doc- 
trine of  passive  submission.  From  the  declaration  and  command  of 
Christ :  "  The  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat ;  all  therefore  whatsoever 
they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and  do,"  they  inferred  the  right  of 
the  Church  to  make  laws  to  bind  the  conscience.  On  this  ground 
tories  and  high-church  men  sought  to  impose  on  the  Church  their 
trumpery  vestments,  and  their  equally  frivolous  logical  deductions. 
It  was  fetters  forged  from  inferences  our  fathers  broke,  and  we,  their 
cliildren,  will  never  suffer  them  to  be  rewelded.  There  is  as  much 
difference  between  this  extreme  doctrine  of  divine  right,  this  idea  that 
everything  is  forbidden  which  is  not  commanded,  as  there  is  between 
this  free,  exultant  Church  of  ours,  and  the  mummied  forms  of  mediae- 
val Christianity.  We  have  no  fear  on  this  subject.  The  doctrine 
need  only  be  clearly  propounded  to  be  rejected. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.  [*] 

The  question,  whether  the  Church  of  England  recognizes  the  validity 
of  the  orders  of  non-episcopal  Churches,  is  one  which  concerns  it  much 
more  than  it  does  them.  They  are  not  the  worse  for  non-recognition. 
They  are  not  thereby  curtailed  of  any  spiritual  power  or  advantage. 
They  enter  no  claim  to  be  regarded  by  Romanists  or  Anglicans,  as 
constituent  portions  of  the  Church  visible  and  catholic.  They  can  as 
well  afford  to  have  their  Church  standing  denied,  as  the  United  States 
could  bear  to  have  their  national  existence  called  in  question. 

The  case  is  far  different  with  the  Church  of  England  itself.  To  re- 
fuse to  recognize  those  as  Christians  who  are  Christians;  to  refuse 
communion  with  those  in  whom  Christ  dwells  by  his  Spirit ;  to  un- 
church the  living  members  of  Christ's  body ;  to  withhold  sympathy, 
fellowship,  and  co-operation  from  those  in  whom  Christ  delights,  and 
who  are  devoted  to  his  service  ;  to  take  sides  in  the  great  conflict,  be- 
tween true  and  false  religion,  between  the  gospel  and  ritualism,  against 
the  truth  and  against  God's  people,  is  a  very  great  sin.  It  is  the  sin 
of  schism  which  all  Churchmen  profess  to  regard  with  special  ab- 
horrence. It  supposes  wrong  views  of  the  nature  of  the  Church,  of  the 
plan  of  salvation,  and  of  the  nature  of  religion.  We  do  not  wonder, 
therefore,  that  the  evangelical  spii'itual  members  of  that  Church  are 
anxious  not  only  to  free  themselves  from  the  imputation  of  this  sin  and 
heresy,  but  to  prove  that  the  Church  to  which  they  belong  is  not 
justly  chargeable  with  either. 

This,  to  say  the  least,  is  not  a  work  of  supererogation.  There  is 
much  to  render  plausible  the  charge  in  question.  Not  only  is  the 
schismatical  principle  of  making  episcopal  ordination  essential  to  the 
ministry,  and  a  valid  ministry  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  and  to  union  with  Christ,  the  avowed 
doctrine  of  a  large  and  controlling  portion  of  the  Anglican  Church  in 
England  and  in  this  country,  but  that  Church,  as  a  Church,  stands 

[*  Article,  same  title,  reviewing  ''  A  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  England  on  the  Validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign  Non-Episcopal 
Churches."     By  W.  Goode,  M.  A.,  F.  S.  A.,  Rector  of  Allhallows  the  Great  and 
Less. — Princeton  Review,  1854,  p.  377.] 
134 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.     I35 

isolated  in  the  Christian  world.  It  is  excommunicated  by  Rome,  and 
it  in  its  turn  refuses  official  recognition  of  other  Protestants.  An  Epis- 
copal minister  communing  in  a  Presbyterian  Church,  would,  in  our 
days,  be  almost  as  rare  a  sight  as  a  Romish  priest  communing  with  the 
Church  of  England.  The  difference  between  the  relation  of  the  Epis- 
copal clergy  to  those  of  other  Protestant  Churches,  and  of  the  clergy 
of  those  Churches  to  each  other,  is  palpable.  Mutual  recognition,  in 
the  latter  case,  is  open,  cordial,  and  undoubted  ;  in  the  other,  it  is 
always  dubious  and  hesitating,  and  often  explicitly  denied.  That 
Church,  therefore,  as  a  Church,  stands  aloof  It  has  no  practical 
communion  Avith  other  Churches.  It  rebaptizes,  in  many  cases,  Pres- 
byterian children,  and  reordains  Presbyterian  clergymen.  It  sends  no 
corresponding  members  from  its  Conventions,  either  state  or  general, 
to  the  Synods  or  Assemblies  of  any  other  Church.  It  does  not  invite 
the  ministers  of  other  denominations  to  minister  in  its  pulpits,  or  to 
take  part  in  its  religious  services.  It  draws  a  distinct  and  broad  line 
of  demarcation  between  itself  and  all  other  Protestant  bodies.  We  are 
speaking  of  the  acknowledged  and  unquestioned  animus  and  status  of 
the  Church  as  a  body.  We  know  there  are  hundreds  of  her  ministers, 
and  thousands  of  her  people,  who  have  none  of  this  spirit,  and  to  whom 
the  exclusiveness  of  their  ecclesiastical  canons  is  a  burden  and  an 
offence.  We  know  that  many  cases  have  occurred  in  which  this  ex- 
clusiveness has  been  triumphed  over,  and  Episcopal  churches  lent 
to  Presbyterian  ministers.  We  know,  too,  that  this  isolation  of  the 
Church  of  England  is  inconsistent  with  the  avowed  principles  of 
her  own  standards,  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  practice  of  her  Re- 
formers and  immediate  successors  for  a  hundred  years.  Nevertheless 
it  is  a  fact.  There  must  therefore  be  something  in  her  constitution 
which  tends  to  exclusiveness,  and  which  leads  her  thus  to  stand  aloof 
from  the  great  body  of  Evangelical  Christians.  This  can  hardly  be 
merely  Episcopacy ;  because  the  Moravians,  and  some  Lutheran 
Churches,  are  episcopal,  and  yet  are  completely  identified  with  other 
Protestant  communions.  Neither  can  it  be  either  the  use  of  a  Liturgy, 
or  its  peculiar  character;  because  other  Protestant  Churches  have 
liturgies,  and  some  of  them  less  evangelical  than  that  of  the  Church  of 
England.  The  isolation  of  that  Church  is  no  doubt  to  be  referred,  in  a 
measure,  to  the  outward  course  of  her  history ;  to  her  having  been 
framed  and  fashioned  by  the  king  and  parliament,  established  by  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  made  the  exclusive  recipient  of  the  wealth  and  honours 
of  the  State.  But  besides  these  outward  circumstances,  there  must  be 
something  m  the  system  itself,  some  element  essentially  anti-Protestant 
and  exclusive,  to  which  the  effect  in  question  is  principally  to  be  re- 
ferred.    This,  we  doubt  not,  is  in  general,  the  subordination  of  truth  to 


136  CHURCH  POLITY. 

form ;  the  making  what  is  outward  more  important  than  what  is  in- 
ward. The  question  how  a  company  of  Christians  is  organized;  what 
is  their  form  of  government ;  what  their  mode  of  worship ;  what  their 
ecclesiastical  descent,  is  of  far  more  consequence  in  determining  the  ques- 
tion whether  they  are  to  be  recognized  as  a  Church,  and  to  be  com- 
muned with,  and  regarded  as  Christian  brethren,  members  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  than  either  their  faith  or  practice.  If  a  body  of  professing 
Christians  is  organized  in  a  certain  way,  it  is  a  Church,  no  matter 
whether  it  is  as  heretical  and  idolatrous  as  Rome,  or  as  ignorant  and 
superstitious  as  the  Greeks  or  Abyssinians.  If  organized  in  a  different 
way,  it  is  no  Church,  it  has  no  ministry,  no  sacraments,  and  no  part  in 
the  covenant  of  mercy.  This  is  the  legitimate  consequence  of  the  idea 
of  the  Church  on  which  the  whole  Anglican  system  is  founded.  The 
Church  is  regarded  as  an  external  society,  with  a  definite  organization, 
perpetuated  by  a  regular  succession  of  ordinations.  Of  course,  in 
searching  for  the  Church,  the  search  is  not  for  truth  and  holiness,  but 
for  organization  and  succession.  Hence,  Rome  is  a  Church,  because 
she  has  prelates  and  succession ;  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  is  no 
Church,  because  it  has  no  bishops.  The  one  is  indeed  heretical,  schis- 
matical,  and  idolatrous,  the  mystical  Babylon ;  the  other,  one  of  the  most 
orthodox,  exemplary,  and  devoted  body  of  Christians  in  the  world. 
Still,  the  former  is  our  Latin  sister,  whose  orders  and  sacraments  are 
valid  and  efficacious ;  the  other  is  an  apostate  communion,  aliens  from 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  forming 
no  part  of  the  Church  catholic  and  apostolical.  There  is  not  only 
more  of  outward  recognition,  but  of  inward  cordial  sympathy  and  fel- 
lowship with  prelatical  Churches,  no  matter  how  corrupt,  than  with 
non-episcopal  Churches,  no  matter  how  pure.  The  form  is  made  of 
more  importance  than  the  substance.  Such  is  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  making  the  Church  an  external  society,  and  prelatical  ordi- 
nation essential  to  the  ministry.  This  is  the  element  which  has  been 
infused  into  the  Episcopal  Church  of  England  and  America,  and 
which  has  produced  its  legitimate  fruit  in  the  isolation  of  that  body 
from  other  Protestant  communions.  Though  not  original  in  its  con- 
stitution, it  is  so  congenial  with  it,  that  it  has  ever  been  adopted  by  a 
large  portion  of  its  members,  and  its  influence  can  hardly  be  resisted 
even  by  those  who  see  its  unscriptural  character,  and  are  shocked  by 
its  legitimate  effects. 

There  are  certain  radical  points  bearing  on  this  whole  subject,  incor- 
porated in  all  Protestant  confessions,  the  denial  of  which  is  a  denial  of 
Protestantism,  and  the  ignoring  of  which,  on  the  part  of  any  Church, 
necessarily  leads  that  Church  into  an  unnatural  and  anti-Protestant 
position.     One  of  these,  as  just  intimated,  relates  to  the  idea  of  the 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.  137 

Church.  All  Protestant  Churches  rejected  the  Popish  doctrine,  that 
the  Church  is,  in  its  essential  nature,  an  external  society,  and  espe- 
cially that  it  is  such  a  society  organized  in  any  one  definite  form. 
Every  confession  framed  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  defined  the 
Church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  to  be  the  company  of  believers,  the  coetus 
sanctorum,  the  company  of  faithful  men ;  or,  as  the  doctrine  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Westminster  Confession,  "The  Catholic  or  universal 
Church,  which  is  invisible,  consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect, 
that  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  in  one,  under  Christ,  the 
head  thereof,  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fullness  of  Him  who  fiU- 
eth  all  in  all."  By  this  is  meant  that  the  body  to  which  belong  the 
attributes,  prerogatives,  and  promises  pertaining  to  the  Church,  consists 
of  true  believers.  And  this  is  only  saying  that  the  characteristics, 
prerogatives,  and  promises,  which,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  belong 
to  Christians,  pertain  not  to  the  nominal,  but  to  the  real  disciples  of 
Christ ;  and  whatever  of  absurdity  and  evil  is  consequent  on  confound- 
ing the  distinction  between  nominal  and  real  Christians,  is  ii^separable 
from  making  the  external  Church,  a  body  of  professed  believers,  the 
possessor  of  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  of  the  true  Church.  The 
great  corruption,  apostasy,  assumption,  and  tyranny  of  Rome  consisted 
in  appropriating  to  herself,  as  an  external  society,  the  attributes  and 
powers  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  the  leading  Protest  of  those  who 
rejected  her  authority  was  directed  against  that  all-comprehending 
assumption,  and  consisted  in  the  aflSrmation  that  the  true  Church  was 
composed  of  true  believers,  and  that  every  man  united  to  Christ  by  a 
living  faith  was  a  member  of  his  body  and  an  heir  of  his  salvation,  no 
matter  what  his  external  ecclesiastical  relations  might  be,  and  despite 
of  all  that  pope,  prelate,  or  presbyter,  might  say  or  do. 

This  is  one  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism.  A  second, 
scarcely  less  important,  is,  that  the  visible  Church  catholic  consists 
of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children,  and  that  particular  Churches  consist  of 
any  number  of  such  professing  Christians,  together  with  their  children, 
united  together  for  the  maintenance  and  protection  of  the  truth,  and 
mutual  watch  and  care.  A  particular  Church  may  be  one  worshipping 
assembly,  or  any  number  of  such  congregations  collectively  considered 
as  united  under  some  one  tribunal.*  The  obvious  meaning  of  this  defi- 
nition of  the  visible  Church  is,  that  as  true  believers  constitute  the  true 
Church,  so  professed  believers  constitute  the  apparent  or  visible  Church ; 

*  Ecclesia  visibilis  est  vel  universalis,  omnium  Christianoriim  societas,  nulla  quidem 
foedere  externa  juncta,  ex  iisdem  tamen  originibiis  nata,  notisque  communibus  ub  ali- 
enif/enis  diversa ;  vel  partiaularis,  singidaris  Christianorum  societas,  externa  foedere 
juncta. 


138  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  consequently,  the  question,  whether  any  external  organized  body, 
or  particular  Church,  is  to  be  recognized  and  treated  as  a  constituent 
member  of  the  visible  Church  catholic,  depends  on  the  question,  not 
whether  they  aro  organized  in  this  or  that  particular  way,  nor  whether 
they  are  derived  by  regular  descent  from  the  apostles,  but  simply  and 
solely  whether  they  profess  the  true  religion.  The  second  great  ques- 
tion, therefore,  between  Protestants  and  Romanists,  in  reference  to  this 
whole  subject,  relates  to  the  criteria  or  marks  by  which  we  are  to  de- 
termine Avhether  any  particular  Church  is  really  a  constituent  portion 
of  the  visible  catholic  Church.  The  Protestant  confessions,  Avithout 
exception,  declare  the  word  and  sacraments,  or  simply  the  word,  i.  e., 
\  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  to  be  that  criterion.*  As  among 
nations  there  may  be  good  and  bad  governments,  that  is,  political  insti- 
tutions more  or  less  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  right  and  with 
the  revealed  will  of  God,  yet  every  independent  state,  no  matter  what 
its  political  organization  may  be,  whether  a  pure  despotism  or  a  pure 
democracy,  is  entitled  to  be  received  into  the  family  of  nations ;  so 
every  organized  body  professing  the  true  religion  and  associated  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  worship  of  God,  is  entitled  to  be 
recognized  as  a  part  of  the  true  visible  Church.  Protestants  have  ever 
acted  on  this  principle,  and  they  must  do  so,  or  forfeit  their  character 
and  their  spiritual  life.  The  Churches  of  Switzerland,  of  France,  of 
the  Palatinate,  of  Saxony,  of  Holland,  of  Sweden,  of  England,  of 
Scotland,  had  each  their  own  peculiar  mode  of  organization  or  form  of 
government ;  yet  each  recognized  all  the  rest.  If  a  body  j^rofessed  the 
true  religion,  it  was  received  into  the  sisterhood  of  Churches,  Avhether 
it  was  Erastian,  Prelatical,  Presbyterian,  or  Congregational.  The  only 
Church  which  has  stammered  and  faltered  in  this  matter,  is  the  Church 
of  England,  which  has  always  acted  as  though  it  was  at  least  an  act  of 
condescension  or  concession,  to  recognize  non-Ej)iscopal  denominations 

*  The  Protestant  confessions  generally  make  the  word  and  sacraments  the  crite- 
rion of  a  Church,  and  sometimes,  as  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  it  is  simply 
the  word.  On  this  point  Turrettin  says  : — "Quamvis  autcm  in  assignandis  vera  eccle- 
sice  notis  qucedam  in  verbis  occurrat  diversitas  inter  ortliodoxos,  in  rcipsa  tamen  est  con- 
sensus. Nam  sive  unica  dicatur,  doctrince  scilicet  Veritas  et  conformitas  cum  Dei  verba, 
sive  plures,  jmra  scilicet  verbi  prmdicatio,  cum  Icrjitima  sacramentorum  administrationc, 
quibus  alii  addunt  disciplinoe  exercitium,  et  sanctitatcm  vita  seu  obedientiam  verba  prcc- 
stitam,  res  eodem  redit.  .  .  .  Porro  abservandum  circa  naias  istas  diversas  esse  neces- 
sitatis gradus,  et  alias  aliis  magis  necessarias  esse.  In  prima  gradu  necessitatis  est 
pura  verbi  prcedicatia  et  prqfessio,  utpote  sine  qua  ecclesia  esse  nan  potest.  Sed  non 
parvum  habet  necessitatis  gradum  sacramentorum  administratia,  quae  ita  ex  priore 
pendet,  ut  abesse  tamen  ad  tempus  possit,  vt  visum  in  ecclesia  Jsraelitica  in  deserto  quae 
caruit  circumcisione  ;  eadem  est  disciplines  ratio,  quce  ad  tuendum  ecclesia  statum  perti- 
net,  sed  qua  sublata  vel  corrupta  non  statim  tollltur  ecclesia."     Vol.  iii.  p.  9S. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.  139 

as  true  Churches.  The  subjective  reason  for  this  faltering  has  been 
the  dread  of  detracting  from  the  importance  of  the  EpiscoiDate,  If  ad- 
mitted less  than  essential,  the  fear  was,  it  might  be  utterly  disregarded. 
The  objective  reason,  as  before  stated,  is  to  be  found  in  the  doctrine  so 
congenial  to  her  system,  that  external  organization  enters  into  tho 
essence  of  the  Church. 

The  Protestant  doctrine  which  makes  the  profession  of  the  true  reli- 
gion the  only  essential  criterion  of  the  Church,  is  neither  arbitrary  nor 
optional.  It  is  necessary  and  obligatory.  We  must  hold  it,  and  must 
act  upon  it,  or  set  ourselves  in  direct  opposition  to  the  word  of  God. 
It  arises  necessarily  out  of  the  uudcniablo  scriptural  principle,  that 
nothing  can  be  essential  to  tho  Church  but  Avhat  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion. This  principle  is  held  alike  by  Romanists  and  Protestants.  It 
is  because  the  former  regard  baptism  and  submission  to  the  pope  as 
necessary  to  salvation,  that  they  make  them  necessary  to  the  Church  ; 
and  it  is  because  Anglicans  hold  there  can  be  no  salvation  Avithout 
communion  with  bishops,  that  they  hold  there  can  be  no  Church 
without  a  bishop.  So  long,  therefore,  as  Protestants  hold  that  faith  in  tho 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  indispensable  condition  of  salvation,  they 
must  hold  that  faith  is  the  only  essential  condition  of  the  being  of  tho 
Church.  To  make  anything  else  essential  is  to  alter  the  conditions  of 
salvation ;  and  to  alter  the  conditions  of  salvation  is  the  greatest  act 
of  presumption,  folly,  and  wickedness  of  which  sinful  worms  can  well 
be  guilty. 

It  follows  necessarily  from  what  has  been  said,  that  by  "  the  profes- 
sion of  the  true  religion  "  as  the  criterion  of  the  Church,  is  meant  the 
profession  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Unless  the 
Bible  teaches  that  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  all  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  word  of  God,  are  essential  to  salvation,  it  cannot  be 
assumed  to  teach  that  the  profession  of  all  those  doctrines  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  No  man  believes  the  former  of  these 
propositions,  and  therefore  no  man  can  consistently  believe  the  latter. 
We  are  bound  to  recognize  as  a  Christian  any  man  who  gives  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  piety,  and  who  professes  his  faith  in  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  even  though  he  be  ignorant  or  erroneous  as  to 
non-essential  points.  In  like  manner,  the  question  whether  any  body 
of  Christians  is  to  be  recognized  as  a  Church,  does  not  depend  upon  its 
being  free  from  error,  but  upon  its  professing  the  doctrines  essential  to 
salvation.* 

*  Romanists  objected  to  this  criterion  of  the  Church,  that  the  common  people 
are  not  competent  judges  of  doctrines.  To  this  Protestants  replied — Agitur  hie  de 
examine  non  cnjusvis  doctrince,  et  qucestionuin  omnium,  quce  circa  cam  movcri  possunt 
sed  tantum  doctrince  necessarice  ad  saluiem,  in  qua  essentia  fidei  consistit,  quw  per- 


140  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

It  need  liardly  be  said  that  in  making  the  true  religion  the  only 
essential  condition  of  the  Church,  and  in  limiting  the  demand  to  funda- 
mental doctrines,  Protestants  do  not  intend  that  other  things  are  un- 
revealed  or  unimportant.  They  readily  admit  that  much  is  revealed 
and  enjoined  in  Scripture,  which,  though  not  essential  to  salvation,  is 
necessary  to  the  perfection  of  Christian  character,  and  to  the  well 
being  and  purity  of  the  Church.  But  as  perfection  is  not  necessary  in 
the  individual  to  substantiate  his  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  Christian, 
so  neither  is  a  perfectly  scriptural  creed  or  form  of  government  neces- 
sary to  the  being  of  the  Church,  or  to  the  existence  of  an  obligation  on 
our  part  to  recognize  it  as  such. 

If  it  be  asked,  what  is  involved  in  this  recognition  ?  the  answer  is 
easy.  To  recognize  a  man  as  a  Christian,  is  to  admit  his  right  to  be 
so  regarded  and  treated ;  it  is  to  feel  and  act  towards  him  as  a  Chris- 
tian, and  to  acknowledge  that  he  has  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a 
Christian.  In  like  manner,  to  recognize  a  body  of  men  as  a  Church, 
is,  1.  To  admit  their  right  to  be  so  regarded  and  treated.  2.  It  is  to 
feel  and  act  towards  them  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  visible  Church 
catholic  ;  and  3.  It  is  to  acknowledge  that  they  have  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  which  belong  to  a  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  is,  that  they 
have  a  right  to  receive  members  into  the  communion  of  the  Church,  or  to 
exclude  them  from  it ;  to  administer  the  sacraments,  to  ordain  and  de- 
pose ministers,  and,  in  short,  to  do  everything  which  Christ  has  com- 
missioned his  Church  to  do. 

If  it  be  asked  further,  whether  all  other  Churches  are  bound  to  re- 
cognize and  give  effect  to  the  acts  of  every  body  which  they  recognize 
as  a  sister  Church,  that  is  a  very  different  question.  It  is  the  confu- 
sion of  these  two  things,  although  so  distinct,  which  alarms  some  con- 
servative minds,  and  leads  them  to  renounce  the  simplest  principles  of 
Protestantism.  They  fear  that  if  they  •  recognize  a  certain  body  as  a 
Church,  they  must  receive  all  their  members,  give  effect  to  all  their 
acts  of  discipline,  recognize  their  ministers  as  their  own,  &c.  This  is  a 
great  mistake.  "We  may  recognize  Austria  as  a  nation,  and  yet  not 
regard  her  sentence  of  banishment  on  one  of  her  citizens  for  holding 
republican  principles  as  binding  on  us.  We  nm.y  regard  the  Seceders 
as  a  Church,  and  yet  not  be  bound  to  refuse  communion  with  those 
whom  they  may  excommunicate  or  depose  for  singing  our  hymns,  or 
uniting  in  our  worship.  It  is  one  thing  to  recognize  the  possession  of 
certain  rights  by  a  particular  body,  and  another  to  endorse  the  wisdom 
or  the  propriety  of  the  exercise  of  those  rightful  powers  in  any  given 

spicue  exstat  in  Scriptura,  et  potest  a  quolibet  fideli  percipi. — Turrettin,  vol.  iii. 
p.  106. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.  141 

case.  As  we  are  not  arguing,  but  simply  stating  wliat  are  the  first 
principles  of  Protestantism  on  this  whole  subject,  we  cannot  enter  fur- 
ther into  details,  or  attempt  to  specify  the  cases  wheti  one  Church  is 
bound  to  recognize  the  acts  of  another  as  though  they  were  its  own. 
This  would  require  a  treatise ;  our  present  object  is  far  more  limited. 
We  wish  merely  to  state  those  principles  which  have  in  fact  led  all 
evangelical  Churches  to  recognize  each  other  as  constituent  members 
of  the  Church  universal,  and  the  neglect  or  denial  of  which  has  led  to 
the  isolation  of  the  Church  of  England  from  other  Protestant  commu- 
nions. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  intimate  connection  between  the  principles 
above  stated,  and  the  whole  system  of  evangelical  religion  and  doc- 
trine. If  any  one  form  of  external  organization  or  mode  of  ordina- 
tion be  essential  to  the  Church,  it  must  be  essential  to  religion  ;  and  if 
necessary  to  religion,  it  must  be  the  exclusive  channel  of  grace  and 
salvation.  This  is  the  essential  feature  of  Ritualism.  These  two 
things  are  historically  as  well  as  logically  related.  To  whatever  extent 
any  body  make  prelacy  and  episcopal  orders  essential  to  the  being  or 
well  being  of  the  Church,  to  the  same  extent  have  they  also  made 
them  essential  to  piety,  and  regarded  them  as  the  channels  of  grace. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  anything  merely  adventitious  to  Protestantism,  but 
something  which  arises  out  of  its  very  nature,  when  it  teaches  that 
the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  or  sound  doctrine,  is  the  only  ne- 
cessary condition  of  the  being  of  the  Church  ;  and,  therefore,  that  we 
are  bound  to  regard  as  Christian  Churches  all  those  bodies  which  pro- 
fess the  true  religion,  no  matter  what  their  external  organization  may  be. 
A  third  distinctive  principle  of  Protestantism  relates  to  the  minis- 
try.    On  this  subject  all  the  Protestant  Confessions  teach, 

1.  That  there  is  no  such  distinction  between  the  clergy  and  laity  as 
the  Romish  Church  affirms.  The  former  do  not  constitute  a  distinct 
class,  separated  by  internal  and  indelible  peculiarities  of  eminence  from 
their  fellow  Christians,  and  exalted  over  them,  not  merely  in  ofiice 
but  by  inward  grace. 

2.  Those  Confessions  teach  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers  ; 
that  through  Christ  all  have  liberty  of  access  by  the  Spirit  unto  the 
Father ;  and  consequently  that  Christian  ministers  are  not  priests  in- 
tervening between  the  people  and  God,  as  though  through  them  and  their 
ministrations  alone  we  can  become  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
tion. The  people  do  not  come  to  God  through  the  clergy  as  their  me- 
diators, nor  are  they  dependent  on  them  for  grace  and  salvation  ;  and 
therefore  it  is  not  the  vital  question  with  them,  whether  their  clergy 
have  the  true  succession  and  the  grace  of  orders.  "  Hinc  patet,^'  says 
the  venerable  Turrettin,  "  ecelesiam  non  esse  propter  ministerium,  sed 


142  CHURCH  POLITY. 

ministerium  propter  ecdesiam,  et  ecdesiam  non  pendere  a  ministerio ; 
sed  ministerium  ab  ecdesia."     Vol.  iii.,  p.  253. 

3.  Protestants  unite  in  teaching  that  all  Church  poAver  vests  radi- 
cally not  in  the  clergy  as  a  class,  but  in  the  Church  as  a  whole.  In 
other  words,  that  the  great  commission  by  which  the  Church  was  con- 
stituted, by  which  its  powers  were  defined  and  conveyed,  and  its  duties 
as  well  as  its  prerogatives  determined,  was  addressed  and  given  not  to 
the  clergy  as  a  class,  but  to  the  whole  Church,  The  power  of  the 
keys,  therefore,  vests  ultimately  or  primarily  in  the  people  ;  of  which 
power  they  can  never  rightfully  divest  themselves.  In  the  articles  of 
Smalcald,  Luther,  expressing  the  common  doctrine  of  Protestants,  says : 
"  Necesse  est  fateri,  quod  daves  non  ad  personam  unius  hoviinis,  sed  ad 
Ecdesiam  pertineant.  Nam  Christus  de  davihus  dicens,  Matt,  xviii.  19, 
addit :  Ubicvnque  duo  vel  tres  consenserint  etc.  Tribuit  igitur  jyrincijoal- 
iter  daves  Ecdesice,  et  immediate."  In  the  same  document,  he  says : 
"  Ubicunque  est  Ecdesia,  ibi  est  jits  administrandi  evangelii.  Quare 
necesse  est,  Ecdesiam  retinere  jus  vocandi,  ellgendi  et  ordinandi  minis- 
tros." 

Turrettin,  in  speaking  of  the  right  to  call  men  to  the  ministry,  says : 
"  Nostra  sententia  est,  jus  vocationis  ad  ecdesiam  originaliter  et  rad- 
ICALITER  pertinere,  apud  quam  illam  deposuit  Christus."  This  he 
proves  first,  "  A  traditione  clavium  ;  quia  ecclesiis  data  est  potestas 
davium,  quae  in  se  complectitur  jus  vocationis.  Patet  ex  Matt.  xvi.  19, 
ubi  daves  regni  coilorum  promittuntur  Petro,  et  in  ejus  p)ersona  tod  ecde- 
sice.,  et  Matt,  xviii.  18,  Christus  dat  ecdesice  potestatem  ligandi  et  solven- 
di:  Vol.  iii.  251.  Licet  corpus  ecdesice  exercitium  juris  vocandi  pasto- 
res  commiserit  Presbyterio  ad  vitandam  confusionem ;  non  ideo  se  abso- 
lute et  simjiliciter  eojure  spoliavit,  ut  dieatur  eo  carere  nee  possit  amplius 
in  ullo  casu  eo  idi.  Quia  ita  commisit  juris  illitis  exercitium  Rectoribus, 
qui  nomine  suo  illud  administrant,  id  illud  tamen  originaliter  tajiquam 
sibi  proprium  et  peculiar e  reservarit.  Nee  exemplum  societatis  civilis  hue 
pertinet,  ubi  pojndus  ita  resignat  jus  suum  Principi,  quern  digit,  id  eo 
absolute  et  simpliciter  exuatur.  Quia  longe  hac  in  p>arte  differt  societas 
politica  et  sacra.  In  ilia  pojndus  potest  resignare  absolute  jus  suum 
principi,  illi  se  subjiciendo,  ut  Domino.  Sed  ecdesia  jus  suum  non 
transfert  jjastoribus  quoad  proprietatem  tanquam  dominis,  sed  tantum 
quoad  usum  et  exercitium  tanquam  ^inistris,  qui  illud  administrent,  non 
propria  nomine.,  sed  nomine  ecdesice.  Patio  discriminis  est,  quod  in  so- 
cietate  civili,  ubi  agitur  tantum  de  bonis  temporalibus,  nihil  obstat 
quominus  popidus  possit  resignare  absohde  jus  suum,  imo  expedit  aliqnnn- 
do  ad  vitandam  confusionem  et  anarchiam.  Sed  in  ecdesia  ubi  agitur 
de  salute,  jideles  non  possunt  sine  crimine  absolute  se  exuere  jure  illo, 
quod  habent  in  media,  quoe  illi  dantur  ad  promovendam  sahdem  suam, 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.    I43 

quale  est  ministerium.  Licet  enim  fides  et  pietas  ipsorum  non  absolute 
pendeat  a  pastoribus,  tamen  exercitium  viinisterii,  quod  purum  est  et  in- 
tegrum, magno  est  ad  piietatem  adjumento,  et  contra  fidei  conservatio 
difficillima  est  in  corrupto  ministerio."  Vol.  iii.  p.  260. 

This  doctrine,  that  Church  power  vests  not  in  the  clergy  as  a  class, 
but  ultimately  in  the  people,  does  not  imply  that  the  ministry  is  not  an 
office,  as  the  Quakers  teach ;  nor  that  it  is  not  an  office  of  divine  ap- 
pointment. Neither  does  it  imply  that  any  man  may  of  his  own  mo- 
tion assume  the  office,  and  undertake  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  any 
more  than  the  doctrine  that  all  power  in  the  State  vests  ultimately  in 
the  people,  implies  that  any  man  may  assume  the  office  of  a  magistrate 
of  his  own  will.  Neither  does  the  doctrine  in  question  at  all  favour 
the  theory  of  the  Independents.  That  theory  rests  mainly  on  two 
principles,  both  of  which  we  regard  as  manifestly  unscriptural.  The 
one  is  that  which  the  name  implies,  viz.,  that  each  congregation  or  or- 
ganized worshipping  assembly  is  independent  of  all  other  churches ; 
and  the  other  is,  that  the  ministerial  office  may  be  conveyed  and  with- 
drawn by  the  vote  and  at  the  option  of  the  people.  The  function  of 
the  people  is  not  to  confer  the  office,  but  to  join  in  the  exercise  of  a 
judgment  whether  a  given  person  is  called  of  God  to  be  a  minister,  and 
to  decide  whether  he  shall  exercise  his  office  over  them,  as  their  spir- 
itual guide. 

But  while  the  doctrine  in  question  teaches  neither  Quakerism  nor 
Independency,  it  is  none  the  less  one  of  the  radical  principles  of  Pro- 
testantism. The  Reformers  protested  not  less  against  the  Romish  doc- 
trine of  the  ministry,  than  they  did  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the 
Church  ;  the  two  being  inseparably  connected.  They  protested  against 
the  doctrine  that  Christ  gave  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  apostles  as  a  per- 
manent class  of  officers  in  the  Church,  to  be  by  them  transmitted  by 
the  imposition  of  their  hands  to  their  successors,  and  through  them 
conveyed  in  ordination  to  presbyters,  imparting  to  them  grace  and 
supernatural  power.  According  to  this  theory,  the  grace  and  power 
which  constitute  a  man  a  minister,  and  which  authorize  and  enable 
him  to  execute  ministerial  functions  efficaciously  to  the  salvation  of 
men,  are  derived  solely  from  the  hands  of  the  ordaining  bishop. 
Without  such  ordination,  therefore,  no  man  can  be  a  minister.  He 
can  have  neither  the  authority  nor  the  power  to  discharge  its  func- 
tions. A  failure  in  succession  is  of  necessity  a  failure  in  the  ministry, 
and  a  failure  in  the  ministry  is  a  failure  in  the  Church.  In  opposition 
to  all  this,  the  Reformers  taught  that  while  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the 
fountain  of  all  Church  power,  the  Spirit  is  not  given  to  the  bishops  as 
a  class,  but  to  the  Church  as  a  whole.  He  dwells  in  all  believers,  and 
thereby  unites  them  in  one  as  the  body  of  Christ.    To  them  he  divides, 


144  CHUECH  POLITY. 

to  each  severally  as  he  wills ;  giving  to  one  the  gift  of  wisdom,  to  an- 
other the  gift  of  knowledge,  to  another  that  of  teaching,  to  another 
that  of  ruling.  Every  office  in  the  Church  presupposes  a  gift,  and  is 
but  the  organ  through  which  that  gift  is  legitimately  exercised  for  edi- 
fication. It  is,  therefore,  this  inward  call  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
constitutes,  in  a  manner,  a  minister;  that  is,  which  gives  him' the 
authority  and  ability  to  exercise  its  functions  for  the  conversion  of 
sinners  and  the  edification  of  believers.  The  fact  that  a  man  has  this 
inward  call,  must  be  duly  authenticated.  This  authentication  may  be 
either  extraordinary  or  ordinary.  The  extraordinary  authentication 
may  be  given  either  in  the  form  of  miracles,  or  in  such  a  measure  of 
the  gifts  of  the  ministry  and  such  a  degree  of  success  as  jDlaces  the  fact 
of  a  divine  call  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  No  Protestant  questions 
the  call  of  Calvin  and  Farel  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  no  Pro- 
testant cares  to  ask  for  any  authentication  of  that  call  beyond  the 
approbation  God  so  abundantly  manifested.  But  in  all  ordinary 
cases  the  authentication  of  the  inward  divine  call  is  by  the  judgment 
of  the  Church.  There  is  a  right  and  a  wrong,  a  regular  and  an 
irregular  way  of  expressing  this  judgment ;  but  the  main  thing  is  the 
judgment  itself.  The  orderly  scriptural  method  of  expressing  the 
judgment  of  the  Church,  is  through  its  official  organ,  that  is,  the  Pres- 
bytery. Ordination  is  the  public,  solemn  attestation  of  the  judgment 
of  the  Church  that  the  candidate  is  called  of  God  to  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation ;  which  attestation  authorizes  his  entrance  on  the  public 
discharge  of  his  duties. 

It  is  on  these  principles  the  Reformers  answered  the  objections  by 
which  they  were  constantly  assailed.  When  the  Romanists  objected 
that  the  Reformers  had  no  valid  call  to  the  ministry,  they  answered, 
ad  hominem,  that  many  of  them  had  been  regularly  ordained  in  the 
Romish  Church ;  and,  as  to  others,  that  they  had  the  call  of  God  duly 
authenticated  both  by  the  extraordinary  manifestations  of  his  approba- 
tion and  by  the  judgment  of  the  Church. 

When  it  was  further  objected,  that  any  man  might  claim  to  have  the 
call  of  God,  and  thus  the  door  would  be  open  to  all  manner  of  con- 
fusion and  fanaticism,  as  among  the  Anabaptists,  they  made  two  an- 
swers ;  first,  that  a  great  distinction  must  be  made  between  an  orderly 
and  settled  state  of  the  Church,  and  times  of  general  corruption  and 
confusion.  As  in  a  State,  in  ordinary  times,  there  is  a  regular  and 
prescribed  method  for  the  appointment  of  magistrates,  which  it  would 
be  a  sin  and  evil  to  disregard,  but  when  the  magistrates  turn  tyrants 
or  traitors,  the  people  resume  their  rights  and  appoint  their  magis- 
trates in  their  own  way;  so  in  the  ordinary  condition  of  the  Church 
all  are  bound  to  abide  by  the  regular  and  appointed  methods  of  action ; 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PRESBYTEEIAN  ORDERS.  I45 

but  if  the  rulers  of  the  Church  become  heretical  and  oppressive,  the 
people  have  the  right  to  renounce  their  authority,  and  to  follow  those 
■\vho  they  see  are  called  of  God  to  the  ministry. 

When  it  was  still  further  urged  that  this  was  to  do  away  with 
the  ministry  as  a  divine  institution,  and  to  make  it  a  mere  creation 
of  the  Church,  and  supposed  the  people  to  have  the  power  to  make 
and  depose  ministers  at  their  pleasure,  it  was  answered,  that  the 
Protestant  doctrine  and  practice  were  indeed  inconsistent  with  the 
Romish  theory  of  the  ministry,  which  supposed  that  orders  are  a 
sacrament,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  conveying  both  authority  and  super- 
natural power,  is  communicated  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  bishop,  and  can  be  communicated  in  no  other  way.  This  ren- 
dered the  Church  entirely  dependent  on  the  ministry,  by  making 
grace  and  salvation  dependent  on  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  valid 
ordinations.  But  this  view  of  the  nature  of  the  ministry  was  declared 
to  be  unscriptural  and  destructive.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  denied 
that  the  Protestant  doctrine  conflicted  with  any  thing  taught  in  the 
word  of  God  on  the  subject,  or  with  the  practice  and  faith  of  the  Church 
in  its  purest  ages.  It  was  admitted  that  the  ministry  was  a  divine  institu- 
tion ;  that  ministers  receive  their  authority  from  Christ,  and  act  in  his 
name  and  as  his  representatives;  that  the  people  do  not  confer  the 
office,  but  simply  judge  whether  a  candidate  is  called  by  God  to  be  a 
minister ;  that  in  the  expression  of  this  judgment,  those  already  in  the 
ministry  must,  in  ordinary  cases,  concur ;  and  that  to  them,  as  in  all 
other  matters  connected  with  the  word  and  sacraments,  belongs  as  the 
organs  or  executive  officers  of  the  Church,  the  right  to  carry  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church  into  effect,  i.  e.,  to  them  belongs  the  right  to 
ordain.  At  the  same  time,  however,  they  maintained  two  important 
principles,  perfectly  consistent  with  this  view  of  the  ministry  as  a  divine 
institution,  the  appropriate  organ  of  the  Church  for  the  examination 
and  ordination  of  candidates  for  the  sacred  office.  The  one  was  that 
already  referred  to  as  so  clearly  expressed  by  Luther  when  ho  said, 
"  Ubicunque  est  ecclesia,  ihi  est  jus  administrandi  evangelll;"  and  there- 
fore, if  we  acknowledge  any  body  of  men  as  a  Church,  we  must  admit 
their  right  to  take  their  own  course  in  the  election  and  ordination  of 
ministers.  "We  may  believe,  as  the  great  body  of  Christians  do  believe, 
that  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong,  a  regular  and  an  irregular,  a  scrip- 
tural and  an  unscriptural  method  of  proceeding  in  this  matter.  But  as 
no  Protestant  believes  that  any  thing  connected  with  such  externals  is 
essential  to  salvation  or  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  he  cannot,  on  the 
ground  of  any  such  irregularity,  refuse  to  acknowledge  an  organized 
body  of  the  professors  of  the  true  religion  as  a  true  Church  or  their 
ministers  as  true  ministers.  Hence,  although  in  the  great  Protestant 
10 


146  CHURCH  POLITY. 

body  one  class  believed  that  bishops  were  the  only  appropriate  organs 
of  the  Church  in  ordination ;  another  considered  the  Pretbytery  was, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  appointed  organ  ;  and  others,  and  they 
perhaps  the  majority,  held  that  the  jus  vocandi  ad  minister ium  vested 
jointly  in  the  clergy,  the  magistrate,  and  the  people ;  yet  as  all  agreed 
in  the  principle  above  stated,  viz.,  that  wherever  the  Church  is,  there 
is  the  right  of  administering  the  gospel,  they  universally  acknowledg- 
ed the  validity  of  each  other's  orders. 

The  second  principle,  which  secured  unity  and  mutual  recognition  in 
the  midst  of  diversity  both  of  opinion  and  practice,  is  nearly  allied  to 
the  one  just  mentioned.  The  Reformers  distinguished  between  what  is 
essential  and  what  is  circumstantial  in  a  call  to  the  ministry.  The 
essentials  are,  the  call  of  God,  the  consent  of  the  candidate,  and  the 
consent  of  the  Church.  The  circumstantials  are,  the  mode  in  which 
the  consent  of  the  Church  is  exjiressed,  and  the  ceremonies  by  which 
that  assent  is  publicly  manifested.*  However  important  these  circum- 
stantials may  be,  they  are  still  matters  about  which  Churches  may 
differ,  and  yet  remain  Churches. 

While  the  principle  was  thus  clearly  mculcated  that  every  Church 
could  decide  for  itself  as  to  the  mode  of  electing  and  ordaining  minis- 
ters, it  was  no  less  strenuously  held  that  every  Church  had  a  right  to 
judge  for  itself  of  the  qualifications  of  its  own  ministers.  Hence,  the 
fact  that  a  man  was  recognized  as  a  minister  in  one  denominational 
Church,  was  not  regarded  as  proving  that  he  had  the  right  to  act  as  a 
minister  in  the  churches  of  another  denomination.  We  may  admit  a 
Baptist  or  Independent  minister  to  be  a  minister,  and  yet,  if  he  wishes 
to  act  as  such  in  our  Church,  we  have  a  perfect  right,  first,  to  be  satis- 
fied as  to  his  personal  fitness ;  and,  secondly,  that  his  call  to  the  min- 
istry should  be  ascertained  and  authenticated  in  the  way  which  we 
believe  to  be  enjoined  in  Scripture. 

*  Essentia  vocationis,  says  Tnrrettin,  consistit  in  triplici  consensu,  Dei,  Ecclesice,  et 
vocati.  .  .  .  Modus  vocationis,  consistit  in  actibus  quibusdam  vel  prcecedaneis,  vel  con^ 
comitantibus,  sine  quibus  vocatio  confusa  foret  et  inordinata,  qualia  sunt  examen  fidei  et 
raorum,  testimonium,  probcB  vitce,  benedictio,  et  manuum  impositio.  Quoad  priiis,  cum 
essentiale  vocationis  possit  esse  in  ccetu,  ubi  desunt  pastores,  cerium  est  populum  fidclem 
posse  vocationem  /acere  in  casu  summce  necessitatis.  .  .  .  Sic  non  desinit  vocatio  esse 
plena  et  sufficiens  quoad  essentialia  sine  pastor ibus.  Quoad  ritus  et  ceremonias  voca- 
tionis, quce  non  sunt  de  essentia  vocationis,  obtinere  debent  in  ecclesia  constituta,  sed 
non  semper  observari  possunt  in  ecclesia  constituenda  et  reformanda.  Vol.  iii.  261.  Again, 
Dum  in  ecclesia  viget  ministerium,  ilia  debet  quidem  eo  uti  ad  vocationem  pastorum, 
nee  pastores  ordinarie  instituere  potest  nisi  per  ministerium  jam  constitutum.  Sed 
dcficiente  ministerio,  vel  misere  corrupto,  potest  ipsa  sibi  miniatros  eligere  ad  sui  adifi- 
cationem,  etiam  sine  minister ii  interventu;  turn  quia  hoc  jus  habet  a  Deo,  turn  quia 
omni  tempore  et  loco  tcnetur  ministerium  conservare. 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDERS.  147 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  denial,  or  oversight,  by  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land of  the  three  great  Protestant  principles,  to  which  we  have  referred, 
has  led  to  her  present  isolated  and  anti-Protestant  position.  Regarding 
the  Church  as  essentially  an  external  organization  with  a  definite  form 
of  government,  she  is  slow  to  recognize  as  Churches  any  societies  not 
organized  according  to  that  model.  The  profession  of  the  true  religion 
is  not  sufficient  to  sustain  the  claim  of  any  communion  to  be  regarded 
as  a  Christian  Church.  As  no  man  can  be  a  Christian  if  not  subject 
to  a  bishop,  so  no  society  can  be  a  Church,  unless  episcopally  organ- 
ized. The  ministry  is  an  office  continued  in  the  Church  by  a  regular 
succession  of  prelatical  ordinations,  and  therefore  cannot  exist  when 
such  ordination  is  wanting.  It  is  the  object  of  Mr.  Goode's  book  to 
prove  that  such  is  not  the  original  and  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  England ;  that  these  anti-Protestant  principles  are  foreign  from  her 
original  constitution,  and  that  her  present  anti-Protestant  position  is  due 
to  the  perverting  influence  of  the  Romanizing  party  within  her  pale. 

The  occasion  for  the  publication  of  the  treatise  before  us,  was  the 
printing  of  a  private  letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  obtained 
under  false  pretences,  by  a  convert  to  Romanism.  In  that  letter  the 
Archbishop  said,  in  reference  to  "the  validity  of  the  orders  of  the 
foreign  Protestant  non-episcopal  churches,"  "  I  hardly  imagine  there 
ai-e  two  bishops  on  the  bench,  or  one  clergyman  in  fifty  throughout  our 
Church,  who  would  deny  the  validity  of  the  order  of  those  pastors, 
solely  on  account  of  their  wanting  the  imposition  of  episcopal  hands." 
This  avowal  caused  a  great  outcry.  The  Tractarians  were  shocked  to 
hear  the  Primate  of  all  England  deny  their  fundamental  doctrine  of 
apostolic  succession  and  grace  of  orders.  A  cloud  of  publications  is- 
sued from  the  press,  assailing  the  Archbishop  in  terms  such  as  those 
only  could  use  who  regarded  him  as  a  fallen  archangel.  The  higher 
the  reverence  due  to  him  if  faithful,  the  greater  the  execration  Justified 
by  his  apostasy.  Mr.  Goode,  so  extensively  and  so  favourably  known 
by  his  able  and  learned  work  on  the  "  Rule  of  Faith,"  here  undertakes 
to  vindicate  the  Archbishop,  and  to  prove  that  it  is  not  "a  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England,  that  episcopal  ordination  is  a  siyie  qua  non 
to  constitute  a  valid  Christian  ministry."  His  first  argument  is  drawn 
from  the  fact,  that  under  Henry  VIII.  the  bishops  and  clergy  put 
forth  a  document  containing  the  very  doctrine  on  which  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  ordinations  has  been  chiefly  rested,  namely,  the  parity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  with  respect  to  the  ministerial  powers  essen- 
tially and  by  right  belonging  to  them.  In  the  Institution  of  a  Chris- 
tian Man,  put  forth  by  the  bishops  and  clergy,  in  1537,  we  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  'As  touching  the  sacrament  of  holy  orders,  we  think  it  convenient 


148  CHUECH  POLITY. 

that  all  bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and  teach  the  people  com- 
mitted unto  their  spiritual  charge,  first,  how  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles did  institute  and  ordain,  in  the  New  Testament,  that  besides  the 
civil  powers  and  governance  of  kings  and  princes,  (which  is  called 
potestas  gladii,  the  power  of  the  sword,)  there  should  also  be  continually 
in  the  Church  militant  certain  other  ministers  or  officers,  which  should 
have  special  power,  authority  and  commission,  under  Christ,  to  preach 
and  teach  the  word  of  God  unto  his  people ;  to  dispense  and  adminis- 
ter the  sacraments  of  God  unto  them,  &c.,  &c.' 

"  *  That  this  office,  this  power  and  authority,  was  committed  and 
given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  unto  certain  persons  only,  that  is  to 
say,  unto  priests  or  bishops,  whom  they  did  elect,  call,  and  admit  there- 
unto, by  their  prayer  and  imposition  of  their  hands.' 

"  And,  speaking  of  '  the  sacrament  of  orders '  to  be  administered  by 
the  bishop,  it  observes,  when  noticing  the  various  orders  in  the  Church 
of  Rome :  '  The  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  min- 
isters, and  of  priests  or  bishops.'  And  throughout,  when  speaking  of 
the  jurisdiction  and  other  privileges  belonging  to  the  ministry,  it  sjoeaks 
of  them  as  belonging  to  '  priests  or  bishops.' 

"Again  in  the  revision  of  this  work  set  forth  by  the  king  in  1543, 
entitled,  A  Necessary/  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man, 
in  the  chapter  on  '  the  Sacrament  of  Orders,'  priests  and  bishops  are 
spoken  of  as  of  the  same  order." 

Again,  "  In  the  autumn  of  1540  certain  questions  were  proposed  by 
the  king  to  the  chief  bishops  and  divines  of  the  day,  of  which  the  tenth 
was  this :  '  Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first  ?  and  if  the  priests 
were  first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop.'  With  the  wording  of  this 
question  we  have  nothing  to  do,  and  should  certainly  be  sorry  to  be 
made  answerable  for  it ;  but  our  object  is  to  see  what  views  were  elic- 
ited in  the  answers.  Now  to  this  question  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury (Cranmer)  replied :  *  The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time, 
and  were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office,  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's 
religion.'  The  Archbishop  of  York  (Lee)  says :  '  The  name  of  a  bishop 
is  not  properly  a  name  of  order,  bid  a  name  of  office,  signifying  an  over- 
seer. And  although  the  inferior  shepherds  have  also  care  to  oversee 
their  flock,  yet,  forsomuch  as  the  bishop's  charge  is  also  to  oversee  the 
shepherds,  the  name  of  overseer  is  given  to  the  bishops,  and  not  to  the 
other ;  and  as  they  be  in  degree  higher,  so  in  their  consecration  we  find 
diflference  even  from  the  primitive  Church.'  The  Bishop  of  London 
(Bonner)  says :  '  I  think  the  bishops  were  first,  and  yet  I  think  it  is 
not  of  importance,  whether  the  priest  then  made  the  bishop,  or  else  the 
bishop  the  priest ;  considering  (after  the  sentence  of  St,  Jerome)  that  in 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAIs^D  AND  PEESBYTEEIAN  OKDEES.    149 

the  beginning  of  the  Church  there  was  none  (or,  if  it  were,  very  small) 
difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  especially  touching  the  signifi- 
cation.' The  Bishop  of  St,  David's,  (Barlow,)  and  the  Bishop  elect  of 
"Westminster,  (Thirlby,)  held  that  bishops  and  priests  '  at  the  heginning 
were  all  one.'  Dr.  Robertson,  in  his  answer,  says :  *  Nee  opinor  absur- 
dum  esse,  ut  sacerdos  episcopum  consecret  si  episcopus  haberi  non  potest.' 
Dr.  Cox  (afterwards  Bishop  of  Ely)  says  :  *  Although  by  Scripture 
(as  St.  Hierome  saith)  priests  and  bishops  be  one,  and  therefore 
the  one  not  before  the  other,  yet  bishops,  as  they  be  now,  w'ere  after 
priests,  and  therefore  made  of  priests.'  Dr.  Redmayn,  the  learned 
master  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  says :  '  They  be  of  like  begin- 
ning, and  at  the  beginning  were  both  one,  as  St.  Hierome  and  other 
old  authors  show  by  the  Scripture,  whereof  one  made  another  indiffer- 
ently.' Dr.  Edgeworth  says :  '  That  the  priests  in  the  primitive  Church 
made  bishops,  I  think  no  inconvenience,  (as  Jerome  saith,  in  an  Epist. 
ad  Evagrium.)  Even  like  as  soldiers  should  choose  one  among  them- 
selves to  be  their  captain ;  so  did  priests  choose  one  of  themselves  to 
be  their  bishop,  for  consideration  of  his  learning,  gravity,  and  good 
living,  &c.,  and  also  for  to  avoid  schisms  among  themselves  by  them, 
that  some  might  not  draw  people  one  way,  and  others  another  way,  if 
they  lacked  one  Head  among  them,' " 

In  turning  to  the  divines  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  when  the  for- 
mularies of  the  Church  of  England  were  finally  constituted  and  estab- 
lished, our  author  quotes  in  the  first  instance  the  learned  bishop  of 
Exeter,  Dr.  Alley,  who  in  his  Prelections  on  1  Peter  read  publicly  in 
St.  Paul's,  in  1560,  says : 

" '  What  difference  is  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  St.  Hierome, 
writing  ad  Titum,  doth  declare,  whose  words  be  these :  "  Idem  est  ergo 
presbyter,  qui  episcopus,"  &c. ;  a  priest,  therefore,  is  the  same  that  a 
bishop  is,  &c.' 
^  "  And  having  given  Jerome's  words  in  full,  he  adds ; 

*  These  words  are  alleged,  that  it  may  appear  priests  among  the  elders 
to  have  been  even  the  same  that  bishops  were.  But  it  grew  by  little  and 
little  that  the  whole  charge  and  cure  should  be  appointed  to  one  bishop 
within  his  precinct,  that  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  utterly  be  rooted 
out.'     (Alley's  Poor  Man's  Library,  2d  ed.  5571,  torn.  i.  fol,  95,  96.) 

"  It  could  hardly  be  doubted,  then,  by  one  who  held  this,  that  if  the 
circumstances  of  the  Church  required  it,  Presbyterian  ordination  would 
be  valid, 

"  About  the  same  period,  namely,  in  1563,  we  have  a  much  stronger 
testimony  from  Dr.  Pilkington,  then  Bishop  of  Durham : 

*  Yet  remains  one  doubt  unanswered  in  these  few  words,  when  he 
says,  "  that  the  government  of  the  Church  was  committed  to  bishops," 


150  CHURCH  POLITY. 

as  though  they  had  received  a  larger  and  higher  commission  from  God 
of  doctrine  and  discijpline  than  other  lower  priests  or  ministers  have, 
and  thereby  might  challenge  a  greater  prerogative.  But  this  is  to  be 
understood,  that  the  privileges  and  superiorities,  wJiich  bishops  have 
above  other  ministers,  are  rather  granted  by  men  for  maintaining  of 
better  order  and  quietness  in  commonwealths  than  commanded  by  God  in 
his  word.  Ministers  have  better  knowledge  and  utterance  some  than 
other,  but  their  ministry  is  of  equal  dignity.  God's  commission  and 
commandment  is  like  and  indifferent  to  all  priest,  bishop,  archbishop, 

prelate,  by  what  name  soever  he  be  called St.  Paul  calls  the 

elders  of  Ephesus  together  and  says,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  made  them  bish- 
ops to  rule  the  Church  of  God."  (Acts  xx.)     He  writes  also  to  the 

bishops  of  Philippos,  meaning  the  ministers St.  Jerome,  in  his 

commentary  on  the  first  chapter  Ad.  Tit.,  says,  "that  a  bishop  and 
I)riest  is  all  one."  ....  A  bishop  is  the  name  of  an  office,  labour,  and 
pains.'    (^Confut.  of  an  Addition.     Works,  ed.  Park  Soc.  pp.  493,  494.) 

"  Both  these  were  among  the  bishops  who  settled  our  Articles,  on 
the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

"  Our  next  witness  shall  be  Bishop  Jewell,  of  whose  standing  in  our 
Church  it  is  unnecessary  to  add  a  word.  On  the  parity  of  order  in 
priests  and  bishops,  he  says : 

*  Is  it  so  horrible  a  heresy  as  he  [Harding]  maketh  it,  to  say,  that 
by  the  Scriptures  of  God  a  bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one  ?  or  knoweth 
he  how  far,  and  unto  whom,  he  reacheth  the  name  of  an  heretic? 
Verily  Chrysostom  saith  :  "  Between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  in  a  manner 
there  is  no  difference,"  (In  1  Tim.  hom,  11.)  S.  Hierome  saith  .  .  . 
"  The  apostle  plainly  teacheth  us,  that  priests  and  bishops  be  all  one," 
{ad  Evagr.)  S.  Augustine  saith :  "  What  is  a  bishop  but  the  first 
priest ;  that  is  to  say,  the  highest  priest  ?"  (In  Qucest.  iV.  et  V.  Test. 
q.  101,)  So  saith  S,  Ambrose:  "There  is  but  one  consecration  (ordi- 
natio')  of  priest  and  bishop ;  for  both  of  them  are  priests,  but  the 
bishop  is  the  first."  (In  Tim.  c.  3.)  All  these,  and  other  more  holy 
Fathers,  together  with  St.  Paul  the  apostle,  for  thus  saying,  by  M. 
Harding's  advice,  must  be  holden  for  heretics.'  {Def.  of  Apol.  Pt.  ii. 
c.  9.  div.  i.  Works,  p.  202.     See  also  Pt.  ii.  c.  iii.  div.  i.  p,  85,) 

"  But  there  is  a  passage  in  his  writings  still  more  strongly  bearing  on 
the  point  in  question.  Harding  had  charged  our  Church  with  deriving 
its  orders  from  apostate  bishops,  &c.   Jewell  replies  : 

*  Therefore  we  neither  have  bishops  without  Church,  nor  Church 
without  bishops.  Neither  doth  the  Church  of  England  this  day  de- 
pend of  them  whom  you  often  call  apostates,  as  if  our  Church  were  no 

Church  without  them If  there  were  not  one,  neither  of  them  nor 

of  us  left  alive,  yet  would  not  therefore  the  whole   Church  of  England  fiee 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTEEIAN  ORDERS.  151 

to  Lovaine.  Tertullian  saith  : — "  And  we  being  laymen,  are  we  not 
priests?  It  is  written,  Christ  hatli  made  us  both  a  kingdom  and 
priests  unto  God  his  Father.  The  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the 
honour  by  the  assembly,  or  council  of  order  sanctified  of  God,  hath 
made  a  difference  between  the  lay  and  the  clergy.  Where  as  there  is 
no  assembly  of  ecclesiastical  order,  the  priest  being  there  alone  (with- 
out the  company  of  other  priests)  doth  both  minister  the  oblation  and 
also  baptize.  Yea,  and  be  there  but  three  together,  and  though  they 
be  laymen,  yet  is  there  a  Church.  For  every  man  liveth  of  his  own 
faith.'"  {Def.  of  Apol  Ft.  ii.  c.  v.  cliv.  i.  p.  129.) 

"  It  is  needless  to  point  out  how  much  this  passage  implies. 

"  We  proceed  to  Archbishop  Whitgift. 

"  And  first,  as  to  the  parity  of  order  in  bishops  and  priests,  he 
speaks  thus : 

*  Every  bishop  is  a  priest,  but  every  priest  hath  not  the  name  and 
title  of  a  bishop,  in  that  meaning  that  Jerome  in  this  place  \^Ad  Evagr.'] 
taketh  the  name  of  a  bishop.  .  .  .  Neither  shall  you  find  this  word 
episcopus  commonly  used  but  for  that  priest  that  is  in  degree  over  and 
above  the  rest,  notwithstanding  episcopus  be  oftentimes  called  presbyter, 
because  presbyter  is  the  more  general  nameJ  iDsf-  of  Answ.  to  Adm. 
1574,  fol.  p.  383.) 

*  Although  Hierome  confess,  that  by  Scripture  presbyter  and  episco- 
pus is  all  one  (as  in  deed  they  be  quoad  ministerium),  yet  doth  he 

acknowledge  a  superiority  of  the  bishop  before  the  minister 

Therefore  no  doubt  this  is  Jerome's  mind,  that  a  bishop  in  degree  and 
dignity  is  above  the  minister,  though  he  be  one  and  the  self-same  with 
him  in  the  office  of  ministering  the  word  and  sacraments.'  (iZ>.  pp. 
384,  385.) 

"  Secondly,  as  to  the  form  of  government  to  be  followed  in  the 
Church.  His  adversary,  Cartwright,  like  the  great  body  of  the  Puri- 
tans, contended  for  the  exclusive  admissibility  of  the  platform  of 
Church  government  he  advocated ;  and,  like  Archdeacon  Denison, 
maintained  that  '  matters  of  discipline  and  kind  of  government  are 
matters  necessary  to  salvation  and  of  faith.'  And  this  is  Whitgift's 
reply  :— 

'  I  confess  that  in  a  Church  collected  together  in  one  place,  and  at 
liberty,  government  is  necessary  in  the  second  kind  of  necessity ;  but 
that  any  one  kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the 
Church  cannot  be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be  altered  into  some  other 
kind  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I  utterly  deny,  and  the  reasons  that 
move  me  so  to  do  be  these.  The  first  is,  because  I  find  no  one  certain 
and  perfect  kind  of  government  prescribed  or  commanded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  no  doubt  should  have  been  done,  if 


152  CHURCH  POLITY. 

it  had  been  a  matter  necessary  unto  the  salvation  of  the  Church. 
Secondly,  because  the  essential  notes  of  the  Church  he  these  only ;  the 
true  preaching  oj  the  word  of  God^  and  the  right  administration  of  the 
sacraments :  for  (as  Master  Calvin  saitli,  in  his  book  against  the  Ana- 
baptists) :  "  This  honour  is  meet  to  be  given  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
his  sacraments,  that  wheresoever  we  see  the  word  of  God  truly  preached, 
and  God  according  to  the  same  truly  worshipped,  and  the  sacraments 
without  superstition  administered,  there  we  may  without  all  controversy 
conclude  the  Church  of  God  to  be:"  and  a  little  after:  "So  much  we 
must  esteem  the  word  of  God  and  his  sacraments,  that  wheresoever  we 
find  them  to  be,  there  we  may  certainly  know  the  Church  of  God  to 
be,  although  in  the  common  life  of  men  many  faults  and  errors  be 
found."  The  same  is  the  opinion  of  other  godly  and  learned  writers, 
and  the  judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  as  appeareth  by  their 
Confessions.  So  that  notwithstanding  government,  or  some  kind  of 
government,  may  be  a  part  of  the  Church,  touching  the  outward  form 
and  perfection  of  it,  yet  is  it  not  such  a  part  of  the  essence  and  being, 
but  that  it  may  be  the  Church  of  Christ  without  this  or  that  kind  of 
government,  and  therefore  the  kind  of  government  of  the  Church  is 
not  necessary  unto  salvation.'     (Ih.  p.  81.) 

'i  deny  that  the  Scriptures  do  ...  .  set  down  any  one  certain  form  and 
hind  of  government  of  the  Church  to  he  perpetual  for  all  times,  persons, 
and,  'places,  without  alteration^  "     (Ih.  p.  84.) 

The  next  testimony  is  that  of  Hooker,  who  says :  "  '  There  may  be 
sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reasons  to  allow  ordination  made 
without  a  bishop.  The  whole  Church  visible  being  the  true  original  suh' 
ject  of  all  power,  it  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed  any  other  than  bishops 
alone  to  ordain  ;  howbeit  as  the  ordinary  cause  is  ordinarily  in  all 
things  to  be  observed,  so  it  may  be  in  some  cases  not  unnecessary  that 
we  decline  from  the  ordinary  ways.  Men  may  be  extraordinarily,  yet 
allowably,  two  ways  admitted  unto  spiritual  functions  in  the  Church. 
One  is,  when  God  himself  doth  of  himself  raise  up  any  ....  Another 
....  when  the  exigence  of  necessity  doth  constrain  to  leave  the  usual 
ways  of  the  Church,  which  otherwise  we  would  willingly  keep.' — Eccle- 
siastical Polity,  vii.  14.     See  also  iii.  11. 

"  In  a  former  passage  of  the  same  book,"  says  our  author,  Hooker 
"  distinctly  admits  the  power  of  the  Church  at  large  to  take  away  the 
episcopal  form  of  government  from  the  Church,  and  says : 

'  Let  them  [the  bishops]  continually  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  rather 
the  force  of  custom,  whereby  the  Church,  having  so  long  found  it  good 
to  continue  the  regiment  of  her  virtuous  bishops,  doth  still  uphold, 
maintain,  and  honour  them,  in  that  respect,  than  that  any  true  and 
heavenly  law  can  be  showed  by  the  evidence  whereof  it  may  of  a  truth 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTERIAN  OEDERS.  153 

appear,  that  the  Lord  himself  hath  appointed  presbyters  for  ever  to  be 
under  the  regiment  of  bishops;'  adding,  that  'their  authority'  is  'a 
sword  which  the  Church  hath  power  to  take  from  them.' "  i^6.  vii.  5. 
See  also  i.  14,  and  iii.  10. 

When  we  remember  that  Hooker  is  the  greatest  authority  on  eccle- 
siastical polity  in  the  English  Church,  these  extracts  have  special 
interest.  They  contain  the  clear  assertion  of  the  principle,  which  is, 
after  all,  the  turning  point  between  Protestants  and  Romanists,  that  all 
Church  power  vests  ultimately  in  the  whole  Church,  and  not  in  the 
clergy,  much  less  in  the  bishops.  If  the  reverse  were  true,  then  the 
Church  depends  on  the  episcopate;  derives  its  spiritual  life  through 
that  channel  as  the  only  bond  of  comiection  with  Christ.  A  corrupt 
bishop  or  presbyter  could  never  be  deposed  or  changed  unless  by 
others,  who  might  be  themselves  corrupt.  God,  according  to  this 
theory,  has  not  only  left  his  sheep  in  the  power  of  those  who,  as  the 
apostle  says,  may  be  grievous  wolves,  but  he  has,  if  we  may  reverently 
so  speak,  debarred  himself  from  giving  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  in  any 
other  way  than  through  the  line  of  apostolical  succession.  There  was 
a  time  when  a  similar  theory  was  held  in  reference  to  the  state,  and 
when  men  believed  that  the  kingly  office  was  instituted  by  divine 
command  ;  that  subjects  could  not  depose  their  sovereign,  nor  change 
the  succession,  but  were  shut  up  to  passive  submission.  But  men  have 
since  discovered  that  the  doctrine  that  civil  power  vests  ultimately  in 
the  people,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doctrine,  that  "  the  powers 
that  be  are  ordained  of  God,  and  that  whoso  resisteth  the  power  re- 
sisteth  the  ordinance  of  God."  This  was  a  lesson  which  princes  and 
people  were  slow  to  learn,  and  it  is  well  for  statesmen,  who  sometimes 
forget  their  obligations  and  speak  with  small  respect  of  the  clergy,  to 
remember  that  this  great  emancipating  truth  was  first  effectually 
taught  to  the  world  by  the  Protestant  ministry.  It  was  not  until  they 
had  avowed  and  acted  on  the  principle,  that  although  the  ministry  was  a 
divine  institution,  and  obedience  to  ministers,  within  their  appropriate 
sphere,  is  a  matter  of  divine  command,  yet  as  all  Church  power  vests 
ultimately  in  the  people,  they  have  the  right  to  reject  any  minister, 
even  though  an  apostle,  who  preached  another  gospel,  that  the  nations 
awoke  to  the  consciousness  of  a  like  power  with  regard  to  their  civil 
rulers. 

Another  most  important  principle  here  avowed  by  Hooker  is,  that 
nothing  binds  the  Church  but  an  express  law  of  Christ ;  that  any  office 
the  Church  has  created  she  may  abolish.  This  he  applies  to  the  epis- 
copate, though  he  labours  to  prove  it  was  instituted  by  the  Apostles. 
But  as  it  was  instituted  by  them,  according  to  his  doctrine,  not  as 
something  commanded  and  necessary,  but  simply  as  expedient,  he  con- 


154  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

sistently  admitted  the  Cliurcli  might  abolish  it.  Of  course  these  prin- 
ciples are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  there  can  be  no 
Church  without  a  bishop. 

Our  author  proceeds  to  quote  several  of  the  bishops,  and  other  vai- 
ters  of  that  period,  who  in  their  controversy  with  the  non-conformists 
maintain  the  ground,  that  no  one  form  of  Church  government  is  laid 
down  in  Scripture  as  essential  or  universally  obligatory.  Thus  Dr. 
Bridges,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Oxford,  in  his  "  '  Defence  of  the  Govern- 
ment Established  in  the  Church  of  England,'"  1587,  says — if  the  form 
of  government  in  the  Church  "'be  not  a  matter  of  necessity,  but  such 
as  may  be  varied,'  then  '  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  break  the 
bond  of  peace,  and  make  such  trouble  in  the  Church  of  God,  to  reject 
the  government  that  is,  in  the  nature  thereof,  as  much  indifferent,  as 
the  solemnizing  this  or  that  day  the  memorial  of  the  Lord's  resui-rec- 
tion.'  "  p.  319. 

In  opj)osition  to  the  same  class.  Dr.  Cooper,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  then 
of  AVinchester,  says,  in  his  Admonition  to  the  People  of  England,  1589 : 
" '  Only  this  I  desire,  that  they  will  lay  down  out  of  the  word  of  God 
some  just  proofs,  and  a  direct  commandment,  that  there  should  be  in 
all  ages  and  states  of  the  Church  of  Christ  one  only  form  of  govern- 
ment.' "  p.  61-63. 

Dr.  Casin,  Dean  of  Arches,  in  1584,  in  a  work,  "published  by  au- 
thority," asks :  "  'Are  all  the  Churches  of  Denmark,  Swedeland,  Poland, 
Germany,  Rhetia,  Vallis  Telina,  the  nine  cantons  of  Switzerland  re- 
formed, with  their  confederates  of  Geneva,  France,  of  the  Low 
Countries,  and  of  Scotland,  in  all  points,  either  of  substance  or  of  cir- 
cumstance, disciplinated  alike  ?  Nay,  they  neither  are,  can  be,  nor  yet 
need  so  to  be ;  seeing  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  any  set  and  exact  form 
thereof  is  recommended  unto  us  by  the  word  of  God.'  " — Answer  to  An 
Abstract  of  Certain  Acts  of  Parliament,  1584,  p.  58. 

Of  course  men  who  held  that  no  one  form  of  government  is  essential 
to  the  Church,  could  not  maintain,  and  did  not  pretend,  that  episcopal 
ordination  was  necessary  to  a  valid  ministry. 

Our  author  next  appeals  to  the  Articles  and  other  Formularies  of 
the  Church  of  England,  which  were  drawn  up  by  the  school  of  theolo- 
gians, whose  writings  are  quoted  above. 

The  23d  Article :  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him 
the  office  of  public  preacher,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the  con- 
gregation, before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same. 
And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen 
and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto 
them  in  the  congregation,  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's 
vineyard."     That  this  article  does  not  teach  the  necessity  of   episcopal 


THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  PEESBYTEEIAN  OEDEES.  155 

ordination,  our  author  argues  from  the  obvious  import  of  the  works, 
from  the  known  opinions  and  practice  of  the  authors  of  the  39  Articles, 
and  from  contemporary  and  subsequent  expositions  from  sources  of 
authority. 

Again,  in  the  55th  Canon  of  1604,  all  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England  are  required  to  pray  for  the  Church  of  Scotland,  which  was 
then,  as  now,  Presbyterian. 

The  third  argument  of  our  author  is  from  the  practice  of  the  Church. 
From  the  Reformation  until  the  Restoration  of  Charles  II.,  Presbyterian 
ministers  were  admitted  to  the  cure  of  souls  in  the  Church  of  England 
without  re- ordination.  At  the  Restoration  a  law  was  passed,  requiring 
episcopal  ordination  in  the  case  of  all  who  were  admitted  to  prefer- 
ment in  the  Englirih  Church,  and  a  clause  to  the  same  effect  was  intro- 
duced into  the  preface  to  the  ordination  service.  This  rule,  however, 
as  our  author  urges,  proves  nothing  more  than  that  in  the  judgment 
of  those  who  made  it,  the  ministers  of  an  Episcopal  Church  should  be 
episcopally  ordained.  With  the  same  propriety  any  Presbyterian 
might  insist  on  Presbyterian  ordination  for  all  its  own  ministers,  with- 
out thereby  unchurching  other  denominations.  Mr.  Goode,  therefore, 
insists  there  was  no  change  of  doctrine  as  to  this  matter  at  the  time  of 
the  Restoi-ation. 

As  to  the  previous  admission  of  non-episcopal  ministers  to  office  in 
the  Church  of  England,  the  evidence  is  abundant.  In  1582  the  Vicar- 
General^  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  granted  a  license  to  John 
Morrison  to  the  effect — " '  Since  you  were  admitted  and  ordained  to 
sacred  orders  and  the  holy  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  ac- 
cording to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Scotland — we,  therefore,  approving  and  ratifying  the  form  of  your  or- 
dination and  preferment — grant  to  you,  by  express  command  of  the 
reverend  father  in  Christ,  Lord  Edmund,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
to  celebrate  divine  offices,  to  minister  the  sacraments,"  &c. — Strypes 
lAJe  of  Grindal,  Bk.  2.  c.  13. 

The  High  Church  Bishop  Cosin,  writing  from  Paris  in  1650,  says: — 

" '  Therefore,  if  at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in  these  French 
Churches  came  to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public 
charge  or  cure  of  souls  among  us  in  the  Church  of  England,  (as  I  have 
knows  some  of  them  to  have  so  done  of  late,  and  can  instance  in  many 
other  before  my  time,)  our  bishops  did  not  re-ordain  him  before  they  ad- 
mitted him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must  have  done,  if  his  former  ordination 
here  in  France  had  been  void.     Nor  did  our  laws  require  more  of 

HIM  THAN  TO  DECLARE  HIS  PUBLIC  CONSENT  TO  THE  RELIGION  RE- 
CEIVED AMONGST  US,  AND  TO  SUBSCRIBE  THE  ARTICLES  ESTAB- 
LISHED."— (Letter   to    IMr.  Cordel,  in  Basire's  "Account  of  Bishop 


156  CHUECH  POLITY. 

Cosin,"  annexed  to  Lis  "  Funeral  Sermon  ;"  and  also  in  Bishop  Fleet- 
wood's Judgment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  case  of  Lay  Baptism, 
2ded.  Lond.  1712,  p.  52.) 

And  the  same  testimony  is  borne  by  Bishop  Fleetwood,  who  says 
that  this  was  "  certainly  her  practice  [i.  e.,  of  our  Church,)  during  the 
reigns  of  King  James  and  King  Charles  I.,  and  to  the  year  1661.  We 
had  many  ministers  from  Scotland,  from  France,  and  the  Low  Coun- 
tries, who  were  ordained  by  presbyters  only,  and  not  bishops,  and  they 
were  instituted  into  benefices  with  cure  .  .  .  and  yet  were  never  re- 
ordained,  but  only  subscribed  the  Articles."  (Judgment  of  Church  of 
England  in  case  of  Lay  Baptism,  1712,  8vo.  pt.  ii.  Works,  p.  552.) 

Mr.  Goode  follows  up  these  proofs  with  a  series  of  quotations  from 
the  leading  English  theologians  of  a  later  date,  all  going  to  show  that 
even  those  who  took  the  ground  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy  were 
far  from  adopting  the  principles  of  the  Tractarian  school,  or  from 
making  Episcopacy  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church.  We  think  he 
has  succeeded  in  proving  his  point,  though  doubtless  many  of  his  au- 
thorities might  be,  as  they  have  in  fact  been,  called  into  question.  We 
know  that  Tractarians  are  famous  for  their  Catena  Patrum,  quoting,  as 
we  think  most  disingenuously,  detached  sentences  from  the  writings  of 
men  in  support  of  principles  which  they  expressly  repudiated.  We  do 
not  believe  that  our  author  is  chargeable  with  any  such  offence.  We, 
however,  give  the  quotations  selected  from  his  pages  on  his  authority, 
as  our  only  object  was  to  show  how  the  evangelical  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  vindicate  her  from  the  anti-Protestant  and  schis- 
matical  principles  of  the  modern  Anglo-Catholic  school. 


CHAPTER  X. 

PRESBYTERIAN   LITURGIES.    [*] 

It  is  a  very  prevalent  impression,  that  the  use  of  liturgies  in  public 
•worship,  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  prelatical  Churches.  Not  only 
Episcopalians,  but  many  Presbyterians  are  in  the  habit  of  specifying 
Episcopacy,  confirmation,  and  the  use  of  a  liturgy,  as  intimately  associ- 
ated, and  as  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  prelacy.  As  to  con- 
firmation, it  is  true  that  considered  as  a  sacrament,  or  a  rite  conferring 
grace,  it  is  peculiar  to  the  ritual  and  hierarchical  system.  The  grace 
conferred  in  baptism  is,  according  to  that  system,  confirmed  and  in- 
creased by  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands  in  confirmation.  For 
such  a  service  there  is  no  warrant  in  Scripture ;  and  it  is  entirely  in- 
compatible with  the  whole  evangelical  theory  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
method  of  salvation.  But  confirmation,  as  a  solemn  service,  in  which 
those  recognized  in  their  infancy  as  members  of  the  Church,  on  the 
faith  of  their  parents,  are  confirmed  in  their  Church  standing,  on  the 
profession  of  their  own  faith,  is  retained  in  form  or  in  substance  in  all 
Protestant  Churches.  In  the  Lutheran,  and  in  most  of  the  Reformed, 
or  Calvinistic  Churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  children  baptized 
in  infancy,  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  are  publicly  exam- 
ined as  to  their  knowledge  of  Christian  doctrine,  and,  if  free  from  scan- 
dal, are  called  upon  to  assume  for  themselves  their  baptismal  vows,  and 
are  recognized  as  members  of  the  Church  in  full  communion.  In  most 
Presbyterian  Churches  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  especially  in 
this  country,  something  more  than  competent  knowledge  and  freedom 
from  scandal  being  required,  in  order  to  admission  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances, baptized  youth  are  not  as  a  matter  of  course  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  on  their  arrival  at  the  years  of  discretion.  It  is  our 
custom  to  wait  until  they  are  prepared  to  make  a  credible  profession 
of  a  change  of  heart.  "When  this  is  done  they  are  confirmed ;  that  is, 
they  are  recognized  as  members  of  the  Church  in  full  communion,  on 
their  own  profession.  The  same  examination  as  to  knowledge,  the 
same  profession  as  to  faith,  the  same  engagements  as  to  obedience — in 
short,  the  same  assumption  of  the  obligations  of  the  baptismal  cove- 
nant, and  the  same  consequent  access  to  the  Lord's  table,  which  in 

[*  Article,  same  title,  Princeton  Review,  1855,  p.  445.] 

157 


158  CHURCH  POLITY. 

other  Churches  constitute  confirmation,  in  ours  constitute  what  we  are 
accustomed  to  call  admission  to  sealing  ordinances.  The  only  dif- 
ference is,  that  we  require  more  than  knowledge  and  freedom  from 
scandal  as  the  condition  of  confirming  baptized  persons  as  members  of 
the  Church  in  full  communion.  It  is  a  great  mistake,  therefore,  to 
represent  confirmation  as  a  prelatical  service.  In  one  form  or  another, 
it  is  the  necessary  sequence  of  infant  baptism,  and  must  be  adopted 
wherever  pedo-baptism  prevails. 

It  is  a  still  greater  mistake  to  represent  liturgies  as  an  adjunct  of 
Episcopacy.  The  fact  is,  that  the  use  of  liturgies  was  introduced  into 
all  the  Protestant  Churches  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  that  in 

the  greater  number  of  them,  they  continue  in  use  to  the  present  day. 
********* 

"Why  has  the  use  of  liturgies  by  the  Reformed  Churches  been  either 
wholly,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Scotch  and  American  Presbyterians,  or 
partially,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Dutch  Church  in  this  country,  been  laid 
aside  ?  The  reasons  are  various,  and  some  of  the  most  influential  pe- 
culiar to  Presbyterians.  One  reason,  no  doubt  is,  the  general  dislike  to 
be  trammelled  by  forms ;  which  dislike  is  the  natural  product  of  the 
spirit  of  liberty,  which  is  inseparable  from  the  principles  of  Presbyte- 
rianism.  The  consciousness  of  the  essential  equality  of  all  in  whom  tliG 
Spirit  of  God  dwells,  and  the  conviction  that  those  whom  Christ  calls 
to  the  ministry,  he  qualifies  for  the  discharge  of  its  duties,  naturally 
produces  a  revolt  against  the  prescription  by  authority  of  the  very 
words  in  which  the  public  worship  of  God  is  to  be  conducted.  Those 
who  can  walk  are  impatient  of  leading  strings.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  the  theory  of  Presbyterianism  is  opposed  to  the  use  of  liturgies. 
In  the  ideal  state  of  the  Church — in  that  state  which  our  theory  con- 
templates, where  every  minister  is  really  called  of  God,  and  is  the  or- 
gan of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  exercise  of  his  functions,  liturgies  would 
be  fetters,  which  nothing  but  compulsion  could  induce  any  man  to  wear. 
How  incongruous  is  it  with  our  conception  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
that  John,  Paul  and  Peter  should  be  compelled  to  read  just  such  and 
such  portions  of  Scripture,  to  use  prescribed  words  in  prayer,  and  to  limit 
their  supplications  and  thanksgivings  to  specified  topics !  The  com- 
pulsory use  of  liturgies  is,  and  has  ever  been  felt  to  be,  inconsistent 
with  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  inward  promptings  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  he  dwells  and 
works  in  the  hearts  of  his  people.  As  no  genuine,  living  Christian  can 
bear  to  be  confined  to  a  prescribed  form  of  prayer  in  his  closet,  so  no 
minister,  called  by  the  Spirit  to  the  sacred  office,  can  fail  to  feel  such 
forms  an  impediment  and  a  constraint.  They  are  like  the  stiff",  con- 
straining dress,  imposed  on  the  soldier,  for  the  sake  of  uniformity  and 


PRESBYTERIAN  LITURGIES.  I59 

general  effect,  which  he  is  glad  to  throw  off*  when  in  actual  service. 
The  Scriptures,  therefore,  which  in  all  things  outward,  conform  to 
what  is  the  inward  product  of  the  Spirit,  do  not  prescribe  auy  form  of 
words  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God.  There  are  no  indications 
of  the  use  of  liturgies  in  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  evidence  of 
the  prevalence  of  written  forms  during  the  first  three  centuries.  They 
were  gradually  introduced,  and  they  were  never  uniform.  Every  im- 
portant Church  had  its  own  liturgy.  The  modern  Anglican  idea  of 
having  one  form  of  worship  for  all  Churches,  never  entered  the  minds 
of  the  early  Christians.  We  fully  believe,  therefore,  that  the  compul- 
sory use  of  a  liturgy  is  inconsistent  with  Christian  liberty ;  and  that 
the  disposition  to  use  such  forms,  as  a  general  rule,  decreases  with  the 
increase  of  intelligence  and  spirituality  in  the  Church.  Without  ques- 
tioning or  doubting  the  sincere  and  eminent  piety  of  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  Churches  which  continue  in 
the  trammels  of  prescribed  liturgical  forms,  we  still  believe  that  one  of 
the  causes  why  the  Church  of  Scotland  never  submitted  to  the  author- 
itative imposition  of  an  unvarying  form  of  public  worship,  and  grad- 
ually dispensed  Avith  the  use  of  a  liturgy  altogether,  is  to  be  found  in 
its  superior  intelligence  and  piety. 

Another  cause  of  the  fact  in  question,  is  to  be  found  in  the  essential 
or  unavoidable  inadequacy  of  all  forms.  They  are  not  only  incon- 
sistent, when  authoritatively  imposed,  with  the  liberty  of  Christians,  but 
they  are,  and  must  be,  insufficient.  Neither  the  circumstances,  nor 
the  inward  state  of  the  Church,  or  of  any  worshipping  assembly,  are 
always  the  same.  It  is  true,  adoration,  confession,  thanksgiving,  sup- 
plication, and  intercession,  are  always  to  be  included  in  our  addresses 
to  God ;  but  varying  inward  and  outward  circumstances  call  for 
diff*erent  modes  of  address,  and  no  one  uniform  mode  can  possibly 
satisfy  the  spiritual  necessities  of  the  people.  Sometimes  the  minister 
goes  to  the  house  of  God  burdened  with  some  great  truth,  or  with  his 
heart  filled  with  zeal  for  some  special  service  in  the  cause  of  Christ, 
the  conviction  of  sinners,  the  edification  of  saints,  the  work  of  missions, 
the  relief  of  the  poor ;  but  he  is  forbidden  to  give  utterance  to  the 
language  of  his  heart,  or  to  bring  his. people  into  sympathy  with  him- 
self by  appropriate  religious  services.  Sometimes  general  coldness  or 
irreligion  prevails  among  the  people ;  sometimes  they  are  filled  with 
the  fruits,  and  rejoicing  in  the  presence  of  the  Sjnrit ;  sometimes  they 
are  in  prosperity,  sometimes  in  adversity.  It  is  as  impossible  that  any 
one  form  of  worship  should  suit  all  these  diversities,  as  that  any  one  kind 
of  dress  should  suit  all  seasons  of  the  year,  or  all  classes  of  men  ;  or 
that  any  one  kind  of  food,  however  wholesome,  should  be  adapted  to 
all  states  of  the  human  body. 


160  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Besides  these  general  causes  there  are  others,  perhaps  still  more  in- 
fluential, of  a  specific  character,  which  produced  the  distaste  for  litur- 
gies in  the  minds  of  the  Presbyterians  of  Great  Britain  and  America. 
The  real  question  in  their  case,  was  not  liturgy  or  no  liturgy,  but 
whether  they  should  submit  to  the  use  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of 
England.  Besides,  therefore,  the  general  objections  to  any  prescribed, 
unvarying  form  of  public  worship,  all  the  specific  objections  enter- 
tained by  Presbyterians  against  the  services  of  the  English  Church 
operated  in  this  matter.  The  English  liturgy  was  framed  on  the 
avowed  principle  of  departing  as  little  as  possible  from  the  Romish 
forms.  It  was  designed  to  conciliate  those  who  were  yet  addicted  to 
the  papacy.  It  retained  numerous  prescriptions  as  to  dress  and  cere- 
monies, to  which  conscientious  objections  were  entertained  by  the 
majority  of  Protestants.  It  required  the  people  to  kneel  in  the  recep- 
tion of  the  Eucharist,  which  was  so  associated  with  the  worship  of  the 
host,  that  many  left  the  Church  of  England  principally  on  that  ac- 
count. Its  baptismal  service  could  not  be  understood  in  its  natural 
sense  otherwise  than  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration. 
It  required  the  minister  to  commit  to  the  grave  all  baptized  persons 
who  did  not  die  by  their  own  hand,  or  in  a  state  of  excommunication, 
"  in  the  sure  hope  of  a  blessed  resurrection,"  no  matter  how  heretical 
or  how  profligate  they  may  have  been.*  It  was  constructed  on  the 
platform  of  the  Romish  Calendar.  Not  only  the  great  Christian  festi- 
vals of  Christmas,  Good  Friday,  and  Easter,  which  Protestants  on  the 
continent  continued  to  observe,  were  retained,  but  particular  services 
were  prescribed  for  a  multitude  of  holy  days.  There  was  a  special  ser- 
vice for  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fourth  Sundays  in  Advent ;  then  for 
Cliristmas,  and  the  first  Sunday  after  Christmas ;  then  for  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ ;  then  for  the  Epiphany ;  then  for  the  first,  second, 
thkd,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  Sundays  after  Epiphany ;  then  for  Sep- 
tuagesima ;  then  for  the  second  and  first  Sundays  before  Lent ;  then 
for  each  of  the  Sundays  during  Lent ;  then  for  Good  Friday,  Easter, 
and  the  five  Sundays  after  Easter ;  then  for  Ascension-day ;  then  Whit- 
sunday ;  then  Trinity  Sunday,  and  each  of  the  twenty-five  Sundays 
after  Trinity ;  then  St.  Andrew's-day  ;  St.  Thomas's-day ;  Purification 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin ;  St.  Matthias,  St.  Mark,  St.  Philip,  St.  James, 
and  the  Apostles,  St.  Barnabas ;  Nativity  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St. 
Peter,  St.  Bartholomew,  St.  Matthew,  St.  Michael  and  all  Angels,  &c., 
&c..  All  Saints,  the  Holy  Innocents,  &c.  How  foreign  is  all  this  to  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel!     It  would  seem  impossible  to  live  in  ac- 

*  This  objectionable  feature  of  the  English  liturgy  has  been  removed  from  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  adopted  by  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country. 


PRESBYTERIAN  LITURGIES.  161 

cordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  English  service-book  without  making 
the  Christian  life  a  formality.  In  perfect  consistency  with  these  and 
similar  objections  to  the  English  service-book,  as  a  whole,  we  feel 
bound  to  say,  that  we  fully  and  cordially  agree  with  the  celebrated 
Eobert  Hall,  at  least  as  to  the  Morning  and  Evening  Prayers,  that 
for  evangelical  sentiment,  fervour  of  devotion,  and  majestic  simplicity 
of  language,  it  is  entitled  to  the  highest  praise.  And  as  to  the  Litany, 
which  is  at  least  a  thousand  years  old,  and  no  more  belongs  to  the 
Church  of  England  than  the  Creed  does,  we  know  no  human  com- 
position that  can  be  compared  with  it.  These  excellencies,  however, 
which,  in  a  great  measure  were  derived  from  forms  already  drawn  up 
by  the  Reformers  on  the  continent,*  do  not  redeem  the  character  of 
the  book  considered  as  a  whole. 

This  book,  so  objectionable  as  a  whole,  in  its  origin,  adjuncts  and 
character,  was  forced  on  the  English  Church  and  people  by  the  civil 
power,  contrary  to  their  will.  Bishops,  clergy  and  parliament  for 
years  endeavoured  to  have  it  rectified,  but  at  last  submitted.  The 
attempt  to  enforce  its  observance  on  the  Scotch  Church,  led  to  one  of 
the  most  wicked  and  cruel  persecutions  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Is  it 
wonderful,  then,  that  a  strong  repugnance  to  the  very  name  of  a  lit- 
urgy, should  be  roused  in  the  minds  of  the  Presbyterians  of  Great 
Britain  and  of  their  descendants  in  America?  Of  the  liturgies  of 
Calvin,  of  Knox,  of  the  Huguenots,  of  the  German  and  Reformed 
Churches  they  knew  nothing.  A  liturgy  in  their  minds  meant  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  framed  for  the  comprehension  of  papists, 
enforced  by  the  will  of  Elizabeth,  rejected  at  the  cost  of  property  and 
life,  by  their  pious  ancestors.  It  would  be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  our 
nature,  if  such  a  struggle  as  this  did  not  lead  to  some  exaggeration  of 
feeling  and  opinion  on  the  other  side.  No  candid  man  can  blame  the 
non-Conformists  of  England,  or  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  if  their 
sad  experience  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  tyranny  in  enforcing  an  ob- 
noxious prayer-book,  led  them  to  the  extreme  of  denouncing  the  use  of 
all  forms.  That  one  extreme  produces  another,  is  the  tritest  of  apho- 
risms. The  extreme  of  insisting  that  certain  forms  should  alone  be  used, 
begat  the  extreme  of  insisting  that  no  forms  should  be  allowed.  It  is  ob- 
vious however  to  the  candid,  that  between  these  extremes  there  is  a  wide 
and  safe  middle  ground.  That  safe  middle  ground  is  the  optional  use  of 
a  liturgy,  or  form  of  public  service,  having  the  sanction  of  the  Church. 
If  such  a  book  were  compiled  from  the  liturgies  of  Calvin,  Knox,  and 

*  On  the  extent  to  which  the  English  Liturgy  is  indebted  to  the  continental 
Reformers,  see  pp.  187-200  of  the  work  under  review: — Eutaxia;  or,  the  Presby- 
byterian  Liturgies  :  Historical  Sketches.    By  a  Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
New  York :  M.  W.  Dodd,  Brick  Church  Chapel.    1855.    pp.  260. 
11 


1 62  CHUECH  POLITY. 

of  the  Keformed  Churches,  containing  appropriate  prayers  for  ordinary- 
public  worship,  for  special  occasions,  as  for  times  of  sickness,  declension, 
or  public  calamity,  with  forms  for  the  administration  of  baptism,  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  for  funerals  and  for  marriage,  we  are  bold  to  say  that 
it  would  in  our  judgment  be  a  very  great  blessing.  AVe  say  such  a 
book  might  be  compiled;  we  do  not  believe  it  could  possibly  be  writ- 
ten. It  may  be  difficult  to  see  why  it  should  be  so ;  but  the  fact  can 
hardly  be  doubted,  that  prayers  written  by  individuals  are,  except  in 
cases  of  uncommon  religious  exaltation,  or  in  times  of  the  powerful 
effiision  of  the  Spirit,  comparatively  worthless.  A  prayer  to  suit  the 
Church  must  be  the  product  of  the  Church.  It  must  be  free  in  thought, 
language  and  feeling  from  everything  which  belongs  to  the  individual. 
It  must  be  the  product,  in  other  words,  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  only 
way  to  secure  this  result  is  either  to  take  the  prayers  recorded  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  those^which  the  Spirit,  whose  office  it  is  to  teach  us  how  to 
pray,  has  uttered  through  the  lips  of  the  children  of  God,  and  which 
have  in  the  process  of  ages,  been  freed  from  their  earthly  mixture,  and 
received  the  sanction  of  those  in  whom  the  Spirit  dwells.  For  a  man 
to  sit  down  and  write  a  volume  of  prayers  for  other  people  to  use,  and 
especially  a  liturgy  for  the  service  of  the  Church,  seems  to  us  very 
much  like  John  Wesley's  making  his  five  volumes  of  sermons  a  creed. 

These  two  conditions  being  supposed,  first,  that  the  book  should  be 
compiled  and  not  written ;  and  secondly,  that  its  use  should  be  op- 
tional— we  are  strongly  of  opinion  that  it  would  answer  a  most  im- 
portant end.  The  great  objections  to  the  use  of  liturgies  are,  that  the 
authoritative  imposition  of  them  is  inconsistent  with  Christian  liberty ; 
secondly,  that  they  never  can  be  made  to  answer  all  the  varieties  of 
experience  and  occasions ;  thirdly,  that  they  tend  to  formality,  and 
cannot  be  an  adequate  substitute  for  the  warm  outgoings  of  the  heart 
moved  by  the  Spirit  of  genuine  devotion.  These  objections  we  consi- 
der valid  against  all  unvarying  forms  authoritatively  imposed.  But 
they  do  not  bear  against  the  preparation  and  optional  use  of  a  Book 
of  Common  Prayer. 

The  advantages  Avhich  we  would  anticipate  from  the  preparation  of 
such  a  book,  or  of  a  return  to  the  usage  of  the  early  Churches  of  the 
Reformation,  are  principally  the  following :  In  the  first  place,  it  would 
be  a  great  assistance  to  those  who  are  not  specially  favoured  with  the 
gift  of  prayer,  and  thus  tend  to  elevate  and  improve  this  important 
part  of  public  worship.  We  believe  that  ex  tonpore  preaching,  when 
the  preacher  has  the  requisite  gifts  and  graces,  is  the  best  preaching  in 
the  world ;  without  those  gifts,  in  no  ordinary  measure,  it  is  the  worst. 
Bo,  as  we  have  already  admitted,  ex  tempore  prayer,  when  the  spirit  of 
prayer  is  present,  is  the  best  method  of  praying ;  better  than  any  form 


PEESBYTEEIAN  LITURGIES.  Ig3 

prescribed  by  the  Church,  and  better  than  any  form  previously  pre- 
pared by  the  man  himself.  We  have  also  admitted  that  the  disposi- 
tion to  use  written  forms,  as  a  general  rule,  decreases  in  proportion  to 
the  increase  of  intelligence  and  spirituality  of  the  Church.  All  this 
being  conceded,  it  is  nevertheless  lamentably  true,  that  the  prayers  are, 
in  general,  the  least  attractive  and  satisfactory  part  of  our  Church  ser- 
vices. This  may  arise  partly  from  the  fact  that  the  qualifications  for 
this  part  of  public  worship  are  more  rarely  possessed  than  those  requi- 
site for  acceptable  preaching.  It  is  certain  that  many  eminent  preach- 
ers have  been  remarkably  deficient  in  the  gift  of  prayer.  This  is  said 
to  have  been  the  case  with  President  Davies,  Robert  Hall,  and  Dr. 
Chalmers.  It  is  evident,  that  to  pray  well  requires  a  very  unusual 
combination  of  graces  and  gifts.  It  requires  a  devout  spirit ;  much 
religious  experience ;  such  natural  or  acquired  refinement  as  is  sufii- 
cient  to  guard  against  all  coarseness,  irreverence,  and  impropriety  in 
thought  or  language ;  such  inward  guidance  or  mental  discipline  as 
shall  render  the  prayer  well  ordered  and  comprehensive.  These  gifts, 
alas !  are  not  common  in  their  combination,  even  among  good  men. 
Another  reason  for  the  evil  in  question,  is  that  so  little  attention  is 
commonly  given  by  our  ministers  to  previous  preparation  for  conduct- 
ing this  part  of  divine  worship.  They  labour  hard  to  prepare  to 
address  the  people ;  but  venture  on  addressing  God  without  premedita- 
tion. Dr.  Witherspoon  says  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Gillies  of  Glasgow,  who 
in  his  judgment  exceeded  any  man  he  had  ever  heard  in  the  excel- 
lency of  his  prayers,  was  accustomed  to  devote  unwearied  pains  to 
preparation  for  this  part  of  his  ministerial  work,  and  for  the  first  ten 
years  of  his  pastoral  life  never  wrote  a  sermon  without  writing  a  prayer 
appropriate  to  it.*  This  was  Calvin's  habit,  and  many  of  the  sermons 
printed  in  his  works,  have  prayers  annexed ;  an  aid  which  Calvin  found 
needful,  and  no  man  living  need  be  ashamed  of  employing. 

We  have  assumed  that  as  a  general  thing  the  public  prayers  in  our 
Churches  do  not  meet  the  desires  and  exigencies  of  the  people.     We 
him  the  opportunity  of  correct  judgment,  was  so  sensible  of  this  evil,  I 
that  he  devoted  the  last  labours  of  his  useful  life  to  the  preparation  of  y^ 
a  work  on  Public  Prayer.     Of  the  faults  which  he  laments,  he  says,  I 
have  felt  this  so  often  ourselves,  we  have  heard  the  feeling  expressed  V  ] 
so  often  from  all  clasess,  that  we  presume  the  fact  will  not  be  denied.  1 
The  late  venerable  Dr.  Miller,  whose  long  and  wide  experience  gave  J 
in  his  fourth  chapter,  he  will  mention  only  a  few,  and  then  enumerates 
no  less  than  eighteen !     Among  these  are  the  following:  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  set  phrases  :  ungrammatical,  or  low  colloquial  forms  of 

*  See  Dr.  Miller's  "  Thoughts  on  Public  Prayer,"  p.  294. 


164  CHUECH  POLITY. 

expression  ;  want  of  order  ;  minuteness  of  detail ;  excessive  length  ; 
florid  style ;  party  or  personal  allusions  ;  humorous  or  sarcastic  ex- 
pressions ;  turning  the  prayer  into  a  sermon  or  exhortation ;  extrava- 
gant professions ;  want  of  appropriateness  ;  want  of  reverence,  &c.,  &c. 
If  such  evils  exist,  it  is  a  sin  to  disregard  them.  It  is  a  sin  not  to  la- 
bour to  correct  them.  As  one  means  of  such  correction,  not  the  only 
one,  and  perhaps  not  the  most  important  one,  would  be  a  collection  of 
prayers  for  public  worship  of  established  character,  sanctioned  by  long 
approbation  of  the  people  of  God,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  ; 
something  sanctioned  and  not  prescribed,  as  in  the  case  of  our  Book  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns.  Such  a  book  would  afford  models,  guides,  and 
helps  which  Ave  all  need.  It  would  be  something  which  those  who  felt 
their  weakness  could  fall  back  upon,  and  which  even  the  strongest 
would  in  hours  of  depression  be  glad  to  resort  to.  It  has  often  been 
said  that  there  is  no  more  propriety  in  a  minister's  using  prayers  pre- 
pared to  his  hand,  than  in  his  using  sermons  written  by  others.  If  he 
is  fit  to  preach,  he  is  fit  to  pray.  There  is,  however,  very  great  differ- 
ence between  the  two  cases.  In  j)reaching,  the  minister  is  not  the  or- 
gan of  the  people,  in  prayer  he  is.  They  listen  to  his  preaching,  they 
join  in  his  prayers.  It  is  of  great  importance  to  their  spiritual  edifica- 
tion and  comfort  that  there  should  be  nothing  with  which  they  cannot 
sympathize,  or  which  offends  or  disturbs  their  feelings.  If  the  preacher 
offends  them,  that  is  one  thing,  but  when  they  themselves  draw  near  to 
God,  and  are  made  to  utter  incoherent,  wandering,  or  irreverent 
prayers,  it  is  a  very  grievous  afiliction. 

It  is,  however,  quite  as  much  in  the  celebration  of  the  sacraments, 
and  in  the  marriage  and  fiineral  services,  as  in  public  prayer,  that  the 
evils  Dr.  Miller  complains  of,  are  experienced.  The  sacraments  are 
divine  institutions  intimately  connected  with  the  religious  life  of  the 
Church,  and  inexpressibly  dear  to  the  people  of  God.  A  communion 
service  properly  conducted  and  blessed  with  the  manifested  presence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  like  an  oasis  to  travellers  in  a  desert.  It  is  not 
merely  a  season  of  enjoyment,  but  one  in  which  the  soul  is  sanctified 
and  strengthened  for  the  service  of  God.  How  often  is  the  service 
marred,  and  the  enjoyment  and  profit  of  the  people  hindered  by  the 
injudicious  and  unscriptural  manner  in  whith  it  is  conducted.  We  do 
not  now  refer  to  the  tedious  length  to  which  it  is  often  protracted,  or 
to  the  coldness  or  deadness  of  the  oflficiating  minister,  but  to  the  inap- 
propriateness  of  the  exercises.  The  true  nature  of  the  sacrament  is 
lost  sight  of;  incongruous  subjects  are  introduced,  and  the  communi- 
cant is  forced  either  to  strive  not  to  listen  to  what  the  minister  says,  or 
to  give  up  in  despair  all  hope  of  really  communing.  Very  often  the 
introductory  prayer  is  just  such  a  prayer  as  might  be  offered  in  a 


PRESBYTEEIAN  LITURGIES.  Ig5 

prayer-meeting.  It  has  no  special  reference  to  the  Lord's  supper.  It 
includes  such  a  variety  of  subjects — petitions  for  young  and  old,  con- 
verted and  unconverted,  for  revivals,  for  temporal  blessings — that  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  for  the  people  to  keep  their  minds  on  the  service 
in  Avhich  they  are  about  to  engage,  and  no  less  impossible  that  they 
should  be  in  a  proper  frame  of  mind  for  it.  Such  a  prayer  is  fre- 
quently soon  followed  by  an  address  on  any  topic  which  happens  to 
suggest  itself;  any  ti'uth  of  Scripture,  or  any  duty,  no  matter  whether 
it  has  any  special  reference  to  the  Lord's  supper  or  not.  Sometimes  in 
the  very  midst  of  the  service  the  minister  undertakes  to  explain  the  or- 
dinance— ^to  refute  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  or  to  establish  the 
true  doctrine  concerning  Christ's  presence — or,  he  sets  forth  the  quali- 
fications for  acceptable  communion,  and  calls  upon  the  people  to  ex- 
amine themselves — or  to  do  something  else  which  is  absolutely  incon- 
sistent with  their  doing  what  they  then  and  there  ought  to  do.  The 
service  is  often  ended  with  protracted  prayer,  embracing  all  the  usual 
variety  of  topics  and  carrying  the  mind  far  away  from  the  proper  ob- 
ject of  attention.  We  know  from  our  own  experience  and  from  the 
testimony  of  innumerable  witnesses,  that  this  is  a  common  and  a  very 
sore  evil.  The  people  of  God  are  defrauded  of  their  spiritual  nourish- 
ment. They  sit  down  to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  only  to  have  the  food 
withdrawn  or  withheld,  and  other  things  offered  in  its  stead.  This  pro- 
duces almost  a  feeling  of  resentment.     It  seems  such  a  wanton  injury. 

It  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  proper  and  profitable  celebration  of 
the  sacraments,  first,  that  their  true  nature  should  be  apprehended ; 
and  secondly,  that  the  unity  and  harmony  of  the  service  should  be  pre- 
served ;  that  is,  that  nothing  should  be  introduced  into  the  prayers,  or 
other  portions  of  the  service,  which  tends  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
people  from  the  one  object  before  them.  The  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  an  act  of  worship.  It  is  an  approach  to  God  in  Christ ;  it  is 
a  drawing  near  to  the  Son  of  God  as  the  sacrifice  for  our  sins.  The 
soul  comes  with  penitence,  faith,  gratitude,  and  love  to  the  feet  of  Jesus, 
and  appropriates  the  benefits  of  his  death,  and  spiritually  feeds  on  his 
body  and  blood.  To  disturb  this  sacred  communion  with  the  Saviour, 
by  inappropriate  instructions  or  exhortations,  is  to  frustrate  the  very 
design  of  the  ordinance.  It  produces  the  same  effect  upon  a  devout 
mind  as  is  produced  by  sermonizing  prayers  which  render  devotion 
impossible.  It  is  a  very  mistaken  zeal  for  our  Church,  which  leads 
any  man  to  deny  or  to  defend  these  frequent  blemishes  in  her  sacred 
services.  The  Presbyterian  order  of  worship  does  not  need  such  apolo- 
gists. 

The  same  general  remarks  are  in  a  measure  applicable  to  the  mode 
of  celebrating  marriage  and  of  conducting  funerals.     Our  ministers 


166  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  people  feel  the  need  of  some  practical  directory  and  appropriate 
form  for  these  solemn  occasions,  which  are  often  rendered  unimpressive 
and  unedifying  by  the  manner  in  which  they  are  conducted. 

One  great  advantage,  therefore,  which  we  think  would  attend  the 
introduction  of  such  a  book  as  has  been  described,  is  the  improvement 
it  would  tend  to  produce  in  the  conduct  of  public  worship,  and  in  the 
celebration  of  other  religious  services.  There  is  another  advantage  of 
scarcely  less  importance.  There  are  literally  thousands  of  occasions  on 
which  public  worship  should  be  conducted  and  the  dead  buried,  when 
no  minister  is  at  hand.  In  vacant  Churches,  destitute  settlements,  in 
the  army,  the  navy,  in  merchant  vessels,  there  is  a  demand  for  some 
authorized  forms.  For  the  want  of  a  Presbyterian  work  of  the  kind 
intended,  the  English  Prayer  Book  is  used  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 
Our  army  and  navy  officers,  when  there  is  no  chaplain,  and  when  dis- 
posed to  secure  for  those  under  their  command  the  benefits  of  religious 
worship,  no  matter  what  their  denominational  connection,  almost  uni- 
versally resort  to  the  liturgy  of  the  English  Church.  That  book, 
therefore,  has  gone  wherever  the  English  language  is  used ;  and  it  will 
continue  to  be  resorted  to,  even  by  Presbyterians,  until  their  own 
Church  provides  a  book  better  suited  to  their  necessities.  We  are  not 
unmindful  of  the  excellent  "  Manual  for  Sailors  and  Soldiers"  pub- 
lished by  our  Board ;  but  it  is  evident  we  need  a  work  of  a  wider 
range,  and  one  having  the  sanction  of  antiquity  and  Church  au- 
thority. 

In  the  purity  of  our  doctrine,  in  the  scriptural  character  of  our 
ecclesiastical  polity,  in  the  simplicity  of  our  mode  of  worship,  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  has  an  exalted  position,  and  a  hold  on  the  affections 
of  her  people,  which  nothing  can  destroy.  But  she  has  suffered  more 
than  can  well  be  estimated  from  those  faults  in  the  conduct  of  her 
simple  services,  which  our  most  venerable  ministers  have  so  often 
pointed  out,  and  from  failing  to  supply  her  scattered  children  with 
those  aids  for  religious  worship  which  their  exigencies  demand.  We 
do  not  desire  to  see  anything  introduced  which  would  render  our  public 
services  less  simple  than  they  are  at  present — but  merely  that  means 
should  be  taken  to  secure  that  what  is  done  should  be  done  well.  If 
God  would  i^ut  it  into  the  heart  of  some  man  of  large  experience  in  the 
pastoral  life,  who  has  dwelt  long  upon  the  mount ;  a  man  familiar  with 
the  literature  of  the  subject,  and  with  the  high  intellectual  gifts  the 
work  demands,  to  compile  a  book  containing  prayers  for  public  wor- 
ship, and  forms  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  marriage  and 
funerals,  he  would  do  the  Church  a  great  service,  whether  the  book 
ever  received  the  sanction  of  our  ecclesiastical  judicatories  or  not.  As 
public  attention,  among  Congregationalists,  the  Dutch  Reformed,  the 


PRESBYTERIAN  LITURGIES.  167 

German  Reformed,  and  Presbyterian  Churches,  has  become  more  or 
less  turned  to  this  subject,  it  is  hoped  that  something  may  be  done 
which  shall  be  for  the  interest  of  the  great  non-episcopal  portion  of  the 
Protestant  communion. 

It  is  a  very  common  impression  that  any  attempt  to  construct  a 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  would  be  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  Epis- 
copalians. First,  because  it  would  imply  a  concession  in  favour  of 
liturgies ;  secondly,  because  no  book  which  could  now  be  framed,  would 
be  likely  to  compare  favourably  with  the  English  Prayer  Book  ;  and 
thirdly,  because  it  would  be  impossible  to  give  to  any  new  book  the 
authority  and  sacredness  which  ages  have  conferred  upon  that.  We 
cannot  believe  that  anything  which  would  really  imjDrove  our  public 
service,  could  operate  unfavourably  to  the  interests  of  our  Church. 
There  would  be  no  concession  to  Episcopal  usages,  even  if  Presby- 
terians should  return  to  the  custom  of  their  forefathers,  and  introduce 
a  liturgy  into  all  their  Churches.  But  this  we  regard  as  impossible 
and  undesirable.  We  might  as  well  attempt  to  restore  the  costume  or 
the  armour  of  the  middle  ages.  There  is  a  very  great  difference  be- 
tween the  uniform  and  universal  use  of  a  form  of  prayer,  and  the  pre- 
paration of  forms  to  serve  as  models,  and  to  be  employed  when  no 
minister  is  present.  As  to  the  second  consideration  above  mentioned, 
we  are  not  disposed  to  admit  the  unapproachable  excellence  of  the 
English  forms.  The  best  parts  of  the  English  Prayer  Book  are  de- 
rived from  sources  common  to  all  Protestants.  We  believe  a  book 
could  be  prepared,  without  including  anything  not  found  in  the  litur- 
gies framed  by  the  continental  Reformers,  which,  as  a  whole,  would  be 
far  superior  to  any  prayer-book  now  in  use.  As  to  the  want  of  the 
sacredness  AA'hich  belongs  to  antiquity,  this,  of  course,  for  the  time,  is 
an  unavoidable  defect.  The  most  venerable  tree,  however,  was  once  a 
sapling.  It  is  no  good  reason  for  not  planting  a  tree,  that  it  has  not, 
and  cannot  have,  the  weight  of  centuries  on  its  boughs.  No  man 
objects  to  founding  a  new  college  because  it  cannot  at  once  be  an 
Oxford  or  a  Harvard.  Besides,  this  objection  would  be  in  a  measure 
obviated,  by  including  in  such  a  book  nothing  which  had  not  been  in 
the  use  of  the  Protestant  Churches  ever  since  the  Reformation.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  that  we  have  not  advocated  the  introduction  of  a 
liturgy,  but  simply  the  preparation  of  a  book  which  may  be  used  as 
the  occasion  calls  for  it. 


PART   II. 


APPLICATION    OF   PRINCIPLES. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

HISTOEY  AXD  I2sTENT   OF   CONSTITUTION".  [*] 

"We  shall  endeavour  to  show,  from  the  origin,  from  the  constitution, 
and  from  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Church,  that  the  theory  of  Pres- 
byterianism  here  presented  [see  note]  is  altogether  false. 

The  leading  points  of  the  case  as  presented  in  this  Review,  are : 

1.  That  the  General  Assembly,  in  order  to  its  proper  organization,  must  em- 
brace all  the  delegates  in  attendance  who  are  furnished  with  the  proper  evidence 
of  their  appointment. 

2.  That  the  commissioners  from  presbyteries  within  the  bounds  of  the  four 
synods,  were  fully  entitled  to  their  seats  as  members  of  the  Assembly . 

3.  That  the  Assembly  has  no  authority  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  own 
members. 

The  first  of  these  positions,  properly  explained  and  limited,  we  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  dispute.  The  second  is  the  one  most  largely  discussed.  The  right  of  the 
delegates  from  the  four  synods  to  their  seats,  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that 
certain  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  are  nugatory.  In  proof  of  the  invalidity  of 
those  acts,  the  reviewer  argues  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of 
Presbyterianism  ;  that  they  rest  upon  a  false  basis ;  and  that  they  are  void  from 
uncertainty.  In  carrying  out  the  first  of  these  arguments,  he  lays  down  a  new 
theory  of  Presbyterianism  ;  the  leading  features  of  which  are,  1.  That  our  several 
judicatories  are  merely  courts  and  advisory  councils.  2.  That  ''  as  to  their  ex- 
istence and  action  they  are  entirely  independent  of  each  other."  ''  One  judicatory 
has  no  power  over  another,"  and  one  has  no  right  to  try  or  condemn  another. 
3.  The  synods  and  the  General  Assembly  "  are  merely  appellate  courts  and  ad- 
visory councils.  4.  The  General  Assembly  has  no  constitutional  power  to  abolish 
or  dissolve  a  synod ;  nor  a  synod  a  presbytery ;  nor  a  presbytery  a  session.  5. 
Though  certain  acts  of  an  inferior  court  may  be  reviewed  in  a  higher  one,  yet 
if  a  presbytery  recognize  a  church  ;  or  a  synod  form  a  presbytery ;  or  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  erect  a  synod,  the  act  is  forever  valid. 

1.  What  then  was  the  origin  and  history  of  our  present  constitution  ? 
It  will  be  remembered  that  at  the  period  to  which  it  is  so  common  to  refer, 
as  the  birth-day  of  the  great  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  a 
convention  of  divines  assembled  at  Westminster,  who,  after  long  de- 
liberation, prepared  and  published  a  Confession  of  Faith  and  a  Direc- 

[*  Article  reviewing  '^  Review  of  the  Leading  Measures  of  the  Assembly  of  1837, 
by  a  Member  of  the  New  York  Bar;"  Princeton  Review,  1838,  p.  463.] 

171 


172  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tory  for  Worship,  Government,  and  Discipline.  This  Confession  and 
this  Directory  were  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  have  ever 
~  since  continued  in  authority  in  that  Church.  Under  that  constitution, 
the  General  Assembly  of  that  Church  has  always  acted  as  its  par- 
liament; exercising  legislative,  as  well  as  judicial  powers;  making 
rules  binding  on  synods,  presbyteries,  and  churches,  restrained  by 
nothing  but  the  word  of  God,  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  its  own  written 
constitution.  This  fact  is  too  notorious  to  need  proof.*  A  greater 
absurdity  could  not  be  put  into  words,  than  the  assertion  that  in  Scot- 
land, the  General  Assembly  is  "  a  mere  appellate  court  and  advisory 
council,"  That  American  Presbyterianism  was  originally  the  same 
with  that  of  Scotland  is  proved  by  two  incontestible  facts ;  first,  that 
our  Church  adopted  identically  the  same  constitution  as  the  Church  of 
Scotland ;  and  secondly,  that  under  that  constitution,  our  highest  judi- 
catory claimed  and  exercised  the  same  powers  with  the  Scottish  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  was  formed  about 
1704 ;  in  1716,  there  were  four  presbyteries  who  erected  themselves  into 
a  Synod.  In  1729,  this  Synod  passed  what  is  called  the  "  Adopting  Act," 
by  which  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was  declared  to  be  the 
confession  of  the  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  f  Various  causes 
led  to  a  schism  in  this  body,  in  the  year  1741,  when  two  synods,  one  of 
New  York,  the  other  of  Philadelphia,  were  formed.  They  continued 
separated  until  1758.  When  a  re-union  was  effected,  they  came  to- 
gether upon  definite  terms,  both  as  to  doctrine  and  discipline.  The 
first  article  of  the  terms  of  union  is  as  follows.     "  Both  synods,  having 

*  See  Hill's  Instittjtes,  pp.  229-241.  This  writer,  who  is  the  stanaard  au- 
thority on  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  describes  the  powers  of  the 
General  Assembly  as  judicial,  legislative,  and  executive,  and  says,  p.  240,  "  In  the 
exercise  of  these  powers,  the  General  Assembly  often  issues  peremptory  mandates, 
summoning  individuals  and  inferior  courts  to  appear  at  its  bar.  It  sends  precise 
order  to  particular  judicatories,  directing,  assisting,  or  restraining  them  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  functions,  and  its  superintending,  controlling  authority  maintains 
soundness  of  doctrine,  checks  irregularity,  and  enforces  the  observance  of  general 
laws  throughout  all  districts  of  the  Church." 

t  It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  the  controversy  regarding  this  Act ;  as  the 
dispute  relates  to  doctrinal  matters.  We  think  it  evident  from  various  sources 
that  the  grand  reason  for  qualifying  the  assent  given  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
was  the  doctrine  which  it  then  taught  concerning  civil  magistrates.  In  1786  "  The 
Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  "  declare  that  they  "  adopt,  according  to 
the  known  and  established  meaning  of  the  terms,  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  as  the  confession  of  their  faith ;  save  that  every  candidate  for  the  gospel 
ministry  is  permitted  to  except  against  so  much  of  the  twenty-third  chapter  as 
gives  authority  to  the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion."  This  solitary  ex- 
ception is  certainly  very  significant.    See  Digest,  p.  119. — \_Digest  of  1873,  p.  50.] 


HISTOKY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  173 

always  approved  and  received  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
larger  and  shorter  Catechisms,  as  an  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of 
Christian  doctrine,  founded  upon  the  word  of  God ;  we  do  still  receive 
the  same,  as  the  confession  of  our  faith,  and  also  the  Plan  of  "Worship, 
Government,  and  Discipline,  contained  in  the  Westminster  Directory ; 
strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our  members  and  probationers  for  the  minis- 
try that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  Form  of  sound  words 
in  the  said  Confession  and  Catechism,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors 
contrary  thereto."  In  another  article  it  was  declared  that  no  minister 
was  to  be  licensed  or  ordained,  unless  he  "  promise  subjection  to  the 
Presbyterian  Plan  of  Government  in  the  Westminster  Directory." 
Digest,  p.  118.  [Digest  of  1873,  p.  49.]  Here  is  the  first  formal  con- 
stitution of  American  Presbyterians,  as  a  united  body.  This  constitu- 
tion, both  as  to  faith  and  government,  was  precisely  the  same  with  that 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Has  American  Presbyterianism  entirely 
lost  its  original  character?  Has  the  infusion  of  Congregationalism 
affected  not  only  the  principles  of  our  members,  but  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  our  system  ?  Do  we  live  under  an  entirely  different  form  of 
government,  from  that  which  was  so  solemnly  adopted  by  our  fathers? 
If  this  be  so,  if  a  revolution  so  radical  has  taken  place,  it  can  be,  and 
it  must  be  clearly  demonstrated.  This  is  not  a  matter  to  be  asserted, 
or  assumed.  We  shall  proceed  to  prove  that  no  such  change  has 
taken  place. 

The  constitution,  ratified  at  the  time  of  the  union  of  the  two  synods 
in  1758,  continued  in  force  about  thirty  years.  In  1785.  on  motion,  it 
was  ordered,  that  Dr.  Witherspoon,  Dr.  Rodgers,  Mr.  Robert  Smith, 
Dr.  Allison,  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  Woodhull,  Mr.  Cooper,  Mr.  Latta,  and 
Mr.  Duffield,  *  with  the  moderator,  be  a  committee  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  other  Pro- 
testant countries,  and  agre(eably  to  the  general  principles  of  Presby- 
terian government,  compile  a  system  of  general  rules  for  the  government 
of  the  Synod,  and  the  several  presbyteries  under  their  inspection,  and 
the  people  in  their  communion,  and  to  make  report  of  their  proceedings 
therein  at  the  next  meeting  of  Synod. 

In  1786,  it  was  resolved,  That  the  book  of  discipline  and  government 
be  re-committed  to  a  committee,  who  shall  have  powers  to  digest  such 
a  system  as  they  shall  think  accommodated  to  the  state  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  America — and  every  presbytery  is  hereby  requii-ed 
to  report  in  writing  to  the  Synod,  at  their  next  meeting,  their  observa- 

*  We  believe  all  these  gentlemen  were  Scotch  or  Irish,  either  by  birth,  or  im- 
mediate descent.  Certainly  they  were  not  men  to  change  Presbyterianism  all  of 
a  sudden  into  Congregationalism. 


174  CHURCH  POLITY. 

tions  on  the  said  book  of  government  and  discipline.  Dr.  Witherspoon 
was  the  chairman  of  this  committee  also.  In  1787,  the  Synod  having 
gone  through  the  consideration  of  the  plan  of  government  and  discipline 
presented  by  the  committee  appointed  the  preceding  year,  ordered  a 
thousand  copies  to  be  printed  and  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their 
consideration,  and  the  consideration  of  the  churches  under  their  care^ 

Finally,  in  1788,  "The  Synod  having  fully  considered  the  draught 
of  the  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline,  did,  on  the  review  of  the 
whole,  and  hereby  do,  ratify  and  adopt  the  same,  as  now  altered  and 
amended,  as  the  Constitution  op  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
America  ;  and  order  the  same  to  be  considered  and  strictly  observed, 
as  the  rule  of  their  proceedings,  by  all  the  inferior  judicatories,  belong- 
ing to  this  body. 

"Resolved,  That  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  above  ratifica- 
tion by  the  Synod  is,  that  the  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline  and 
Confession  of  Faith,  as  now  ratified,  is  to  continue  to  be  our  constitu- 
tion, and  the  confession  of  our  faith  and  practice  unalterably,  unless 
two-thirds  of  the  presbyteries  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  propose  alterations  or  amendments,  and  such  alterations  or  amend- 
ments, shall  be  agreed  to  and  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly."  Di- 
gest, p.  117,  &c.,  \_Dlgest  of  1873,  p.  51]. 

We  may  commend,  in  passing,  this  minute  to  the  special  attention  of 
those  who  are  so  fond  of  appealing  to  the  liberal  Presbyterianism  of  our 
fathers.  Here  we  see  the  Synod,  not  merely  making  laws,  but  forming 
a  constitution  by  their  own  authority,  and  ordering  all  inferior  judi- 
catories to  make  it  the  rule  by  which  to  govern  their  proceedings.  This 
constitution  was  not  submitted  to  the  presbyteries,  except  for  their  obser- 
vations, exactly  as  it  was  submitted  to  the  churches.  Neither  acted  with 
any  authority  in  the  matter ;  it  was  formed  and  ratified  by  the  Synod. 

And  this  is  not  all ;  this  constitution  was  fixed  unalterably,  unless 
two-thirds  of  the  presbyteries  shovild  propose  alterations ;  and  even  then 
they  could  only  propose ;  the  alterations  were  to  be  enacted  by  the 
General  Assembly,  then  just  determined  upon.  Here,  then,  at  the  very 
birth  of  American  Presbyterianism,  we  have  the  highest  toned  Scottish 
doctrine,  of  which  the  history  of  the  parent  Church  can  furnish  an  ex- 
ample. What  higher  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority  can  there  be, 
than  the  formation  of  a  constitution  ? 

*  *  Hs  *.*  *  *  :)« 

The  first  American  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  form- 
ed, as  already  stated,  in  1788.  The  only  general  principle  in  which  it 
differed  from  that  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  was  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  civil  magistrates  to  interfere  in  matters  of  religion.     Accordingly 


HISTORY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  175 

those  portions  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  assert  magistrates  to 
have  this  right  were  altered ;  and  in  the  answer  to  the  question  in  the 
Larger  Catechism,  What  is  forbidden  in  the  Second  Commandment  ? 
the  clause,  "  tolerating  a  false  religion "  was  stricken  out.  The  two 
leading  points  of  difference  as  to  government  between  our  system  and 
the  Scottish  are ;  first,  that  we  have  no  body  analogous  to  the  "  Com- 
mission of  the  General  Assembly,"  which  continues  to  meet,  at  certain 
times,  after  the  adjournpaent  of  the  Assembly,  and  exercises  all  its 
powers,  subject,  however,  to  the  review  of  the  next  General  Asssmbly. 
Originally  this  feature  belonged  to  our  system.  In  1774,  a  minute  was 
adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Synod,  declaring  the  powers  of  such 
a  commission,  in  order  to  remove  the  doubts  which  had  prevailed  on 
this  subject.  In  this  minute  it  is  said:  The  Synod  "do  determine  that 
the  commission  shall  continue,  and  meet  whensoever  called  by  the  mod- 
erator, at  the  request  of  the  first  nine  on  the  roll  of  the  commission,  or 
the  major  part  of  the  first  nine  ministers,  and  when  met,  that  it  shall 
be  invested  with  all  the  powers  of  the  Synod ;  and  sit  by  their  own  ad- 
journments from  time  to  time;  and  let  it  also  be  duly  attended  to  that 
there  can  lie  no  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  as  there 
can  be  none  from  the  judgment  of  the  Synod ;  but  there  may  be  a  re- 
view of  their  proceedings  and  judgments  by  the  Synod,"  &c.  Digest, 
p.  45.  Thus  thorough-going  was  the  conformity  of  American  Presby- 
terianism  in  its  origin  to  the  Scottish  model.  This  provision  was  not 
adopted  in  the  new  constitution.  A  second  source  of  difl^erence  consists 
in  the  close  relation  which  exists  in  Scotland  between  the  Church  and 
state.  This  has  very  materially  modified  their  system.  There  are  also 
various  differences  as  to  matters  of  detail.  The  ratio  of  representation 
of  ministers  and  elders  in  the  General  Assembly  is  not  equal,  as  it  is 
with  us;  the  universities  and  certain  royal  burghs  send  delegates,  either 
ministers  or  elders;  and  ministers  without  charges,  with  a  few  excep- 
tions, are  not  allowed  to  sit  in  presbytery.  There  is  also  considerable 
diflTerence  in  practice  between  the  two  churches.  The  General  Assem- 
bly here  has  not  been  accustomed,  especially  of  late  years,  to  interfere 
so  much  with  the  proceedings  of  the  lower  courts.  As  to  all  general 
principles  and  arrangements,  however,  the  constitution  of  1788  con- 
formed to  that  which  we  had  derived  from  Scotland.  There  are  the 
same  courts ;  the  same  subordination  of  the  lower  to  the  higher  judica- 
tories ;  and  the  same  general  statement  of  their  respective  powers  and 
privileges. 

The  constitution  of  1788,  which  was,  in  all  its  essential  features,  the 
same  as  that  Avhich  had  been  previously  in  force,  remained  almost  with- 
out alteration  until  the  year  1804.  In  that  year  a  committee  appointed 
for  the  purpose,  proposed  a  number  of  amendments,  which  they  say  in 


176  CHUECH  POLITY. 

their  report,  "  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  if  the  whole  of  them  should  be 
adopted,  they  would  not  alter,  but  only  explain,  render  more  practica- 
ble, and  bring  nearer  to  perfection,  the  general  system  which  has  al- 
ready gone  into  use."  These  amendments  received  the  sanction  of  a 
majority  of  the  presbyteries,  and  may  be  seen  in  pages  56  and  67  of  the 
printed  Minutes  for  that  year.  Most  of  them  are  merely  verbal  correc- 
rections,  and  not  one  makes  the  least  alteration  in  any  one  general  prin- 
ciple of  our  system. 

The  revision  of  the  constitution  made  in  1821,  resulted  in  very  nu- 
merous alterations.  These,  however,  related  either  to  mere  phraseology, 
or  to  matters  of  form  and  detail ;  or  were  explanatory  of  preceding 
rules;  or  consisted  of  additional  directions  as  to  forms  of  process. 
There  was  no  alteration  designed  or  effected  in  the  relation  of  our  sev- 
eral courts  to  each  other,  or  in  their  general  powers. — Though  we  do 
not  believe  that  there  was  any  intention  to  enlarge  the  power  of  any  of 
the  judicatories,  yet  it  so  happens  that  the  changes  made,  so  far  as  they 
have  any  significancy,  tend  to  increase  the  authority  of  the  higher 
courts.  Thus  in  the  section  on  the  power  of  synods,  which  state  that 
they  have  authority  to  take  such  order  respecting  presbyteries,  sessions, 
and  people  under  their  care,  as  may  be  in  conformity  with  the  word  of 
God,  the  clause  "  and  not  contradictory  to  the  decisions  of  the  General 
Assembly  "  is  stricken  out,  and  the  words  "  the  established  rules  "  put 
in  its  place.  This  alteration  is  an  obvious  improvement,  as  it  is  much 
more  definite  and  intelligible,  since  the  decisions  of  the  Assembly  may 
not  have  been  uniform  or  consistent.  And  again,  in  the  section  on  the 
powers  of  the  Assembly,  the  comprehensive  clause,  (the  power)  "  of  su- 
perintending the  concerns  of  the  whole  Church  "  is  inserted. 

We  are  giving  ourselves,  however,  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary  trouble 
in  proving  a  negative.  Let  those  who  assert  that  Presbyterianism  has, 
in  this  country,  been  completely  emasculated,  show  when,  how,  and  by 
whom  it  was  done.  Let  them  point  out  the  process  by  which  one  form 
of  government,  known  of  all  men  as  to  its  essential  features,  was  trans- 
muted into  another.  This  pamphlet  does  not  contain  a  shadow  of  such 
proof,  either  from  the  constitution,  history,  or  practice  of  the  Church. 
It  is  all  bald  assertion ;  assertion  unrestricted  by  any  knowledge  of  the 
subject,  or  by  any  modesty  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  The  reference 
made  on  p.  11  to  our  constitution,  calls  for  no  modification  of  the  above 
remark  ;  for  the  passage  which  is  there  imperfectly  quoted  has  no  rela- 
tion to  the  point  which  it  is  cited  to  prove.  We  are  told  that,  "  The 
church  session  and  presbytery  alone  have  original  jurisdiction.  The 
synods  and  Assembly  are  merely  courts  of  review, — appellate  courts. 
They  have  none  of  them  legislative  2^owers.  '  All  Church  power,'  says 
\\  the  constitution,  '  is  only  ministerial  and  declarative.    The  Holy  Scrip- 


HISTORY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  177 

tures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  No  Church  judicatory 
ought  to  pretend  to  make  laws.  The  right  of  judging  upon  laws  al- 
ready made  must  be  lodged  with  fallible  men,  and  synods  and  councils 
may  err,  yet  there  is  more  danger  from  the  usurped  claim  of  malcing 
hxvs.'  I  am  thus  particular  upon  this  point,"  adds  the  writer, "  because 
the  '  usurped  claim  of  making  laws '  was  actually  set  up,  and  these  pro- 
ceedings (of  the  Assembly  of  1837)  justified  as  legislative  acts."  "We 
are  far  from  supposing  that  the  above  passage  from  the  constitution, 
printed  as  a  continuous  quotation,  was  garbled  and  patched  with  a 
design  to  deceive ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  it  is  so  garbled  as  to  make  the 
constitution  assert  the  very  reverse  of  what  its  authors  intended,  and 
what  from  their  lips  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity.  The  passage 
stands  thus  in  the  introductory  chapter,  §  7.  "  That  all  Church  power, 
whether  exercised  by  the  body  in  general,  or  in  the  way  of  representa- 
tion by  delegated  authority,  is  only  ministerial  and  declarative :  That 
is  to  say,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  man- 
ners ;  that  no  Church  judicatory  ought  to  pretend  to  make  laws,  to  bind 
the  conscience  in  virtue  of  their  own  authority ;  and  that  all  their  de- 
cisions should  be  founded  upon  the  revealed  will  of  God.  Now  though 
it  will  be  easily  admitted  that  all  synods  and  councils  may  err,  through 
the  frailty  inseparable  from  humauity ;  yet  there  is  much  greater 
danger  from  the  usurped  claim  of  making  laws,  than  from  the  right  of 
judging  upon  laws  already  made,  and  common  to  all  who  profess  the 
gospel ;  although  this  right,  as  necessity  requires  in  the  present  state, 
be  lodged  with  fallible  men."  "What  is  the  power  which  is  here  denied  ? 
and  to  whom  is  it  denied  ?  It  is  the  power  "  to  make  laws  to  bind  the 
conscience"  in  virtue  of  human  authority.  "Why?  Because  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  The  framers  of  our  con- 
stitution meant  to  deny  the  claim  set  up  by  the  Komish,  and  some 
other  Churches,  to  legislate  authoritatively  on  matters  of  faith  and 
morals.  The  power  of  the  Church,  in  such  matters,  is  merely  ministe-  1 
rial  and  declarative.  She  may  declare  "what,  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  truth  and  duty  are ;  but  she  .cannot  make  any  thing  a  matter  of  j 
duty,  which  is  not  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures.  The  laws  of  which  they 
speak  are  "  common  to  all  those  who  profess  the  gospel ;"  such  laws  the 
Church  can  neither  make  nor  repeal,  she  can  only  declare  and  adminis- 
ter. This  power  is  denied  not  merely  to  our  judicatories,  but  to  the 
Church  as  a  body.  According  to  this  writer,  however,  the  power  de- 
nied, is  that  of  making  laws  of  any  kind.  To  sustain  this  assertion  the 
proposition  is  made  general ;  "  No  Church  judicatory  ought  to  pretend 
to  make  laws ;"  leaving  out  the  restrictive  clause  ''  to  bind  the  conscien- 
ces in  virtue  of  their  own  authority ;"  thus  perverting  the  whole  para- 
graph from  its  obvious  meaning  and  design.  This  introductory  chapter 
12 


178  CHURCH  POLITY. 

to  the  Form  of  Government  was  prefixed  to  it  in  1788,  where  it  has 
stood  ever  since.  We  wonder  that  the  absurdity  did  not  occur  to  the 
writer,  or  to  his  clerical  endorsers,  of  making  a  set  of  sane  men  gravely 
deny  to  the  Church  collectively,  and  to  all  of  its  judicatories,  all  legis- 
lative authority,  while  they  were  in  the  very  act  of  ordaming  a  code  of 
laws  for  the  government  of  the  Church.  Is  not  our  constitution  a  set 
of  laws  ?  Was  it  not  enacted  by  the  Church  judicatories  ?  Have  they 
not  the  power  to  repeal,  or  modify  it  at  pleasure  ?  Yet  they  have  no 
legislative  authority !  This  is  the  kind  of  reasoning  which  we  are 
called  upon  to  answer. 

Having  shown  that  our  Church  at  first  adopted  identically  the  same 
formulas  of  faith  and  government  as  the  Church  of  Scotland ;  and  that 
the  successive  modifications  of  the  constitution  in  1788,  1804,  and 
1821,  left  the  essential  principles  of  the  system  unchanged,  we  might 
dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject  entirely.  But  it  is  so  important,  and 
the  ignorance  respecting  it,  as  it  would  seem,  is  so  great  and  general, 
that  we  will  proceed  to  the  other  sources  of  proof,  and  demonstrate 
from  the  constitution  as  it  now  stands,  and  from  the  uniform  practice 
of  the  Church,  the  utter  unsoundness  of  this  new  theory  of  Presbyte- 
rianism. 

This  theory  is,  that  our  judicatories  have  no  legislative  power;  that 
they  are  severally  independent  of  each  other,  as  to  their  existence  and 
action;  and  that  the  higher  courts  are  merely  appellate  courts  and 
advisory  councils.  In  the  31st  chap,  of  the  Confession,  of  Faith,  sect. 
2,  it  is  said,  "  It  belongeth  to  synods  and  councils,  ministerially,  to 
determine  controversies  of  faith,  and  cases  of  conscience ;  to  set  down 
rules  and  directions  for  the  better  ordering  of  the  public  worship  of 
God,  and  government  of  his  Church ;  to  receive  complaints  in  cases  of 
mal-administration,  and  authoritatively  to  determine  the  same:  which 
decrees  and  determinations,  if  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be 
received  with  reverence  and  submission,  not  only  for  their  agreement 
with  the  word,  but  also  for  the  power  whereby  they  are  made,  as  being 
an  ordinance  of  God,  appointed  thereunto  in  his  word."  *  It  is  here 
taught,  as  plain  as  language  can  speak,  that  synods  and  councils  have 
power  to  set  down  rules  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  which,  if 
consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with  reverence  and 
submission  out  of  respect  to  the  authority  by  which  they  are  made. 
With  regard  to  matters  of  faith  and  conscience  their  power  is  ministe- 
rial ;  with  regard  to  matters  of  discipline  and  government  it  is  legisla- 

*  The  proof  passage  cited  in  the  margin  is  Acts  16:  4.  *'And  as  they  went 
through  the  cities  they  delivered  unto  them  the  decrees  for  to  keep,  that  were 
ordained  by  the  apostles  and  elders  which  were  at  Jerusalem." 


HISTOEY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  179 

tive.  "  To  set  down  rules  "  is  to  make  laws,  as  we  presume  no  one  will 
deny.  Let  it  be  considered  that  this  is  not  a  passing  declaration.  It 
is  an  article  of  faith  found  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  which  our 
Church  has  always  adopted  as  the  confession  of  her  faith;  and  to 
which  every  Presbyterian  minister  and  elder  has  subscribed.  This  is 
the  faith  of  the  Church  as  to  the  authority  of  synods.  Yet  we  are  told 
in  the  very  face  of  this  first  principle  of  our  system,  that  synods  or 
councils  have  no  legislative  power ;  that  they  cannot  "  set  down  rules  " 
for  the  government  of  the  Church;  that  their  only  power  is  judicial  or 
advisory ! 

This  power  of  the  Church  resides,  according  to  our  Confession,  in 
synods  or  councils,  and  is  inherent  in  them.  This  is  not  indeed  a  pe- 
culiarity of  our  Church  ;  it  is,  with  the  exception  of  the  comparatively 
small  body  of  Congregationalists,  the  faith  of  the  Christian  world,  and 
always  has  been.  Provincial,  national,  and  oecumenical  synods  have 
always  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  making  canons,  or  ecclesias- 
tical laws,  obligatory  on  all  within  their  jurisdiction.  In  our  system 
we  have  councils  of  various  kinds,  the  Session,  Presbytery,  Synod, 
and  General  Assembly,  and  they  all,  in  virtue  of  their  very  nature,  as 
councils,  have  this  authority,  limited  in  all  cases  by  the  word  of  God, 
and  restricted  by  the  peculiarities  of  our  constitution. 

A  Session  is  a  parochial  or  congregational  council  charged  with  "  the 
spiritual  government "  of  a  particular  church.  They  may  make  what 
rules  they  see  fit  for  the  government  of  the  congregation,  not  inconsist- 
ent with  the  constitution.  This  power  they  exercise  every  day ;  making 
rules  about  the  admission  of  members,  and  other  matters ;  which  are 
nowhere  prescribed  in  the  constitution,  and  which  are  probably  not  al- 
ways consistent  with  it.  The  next  highest  council  is  the  Presbytery. 
It  has  charge  of  the  government  of  the  churches  within  a  certain 
district.  It  makes  rules  binding  on  them  ;  as  for  example,  forbiding 
a  congregation  to  call  or  to  dismiss  a  pastor  without  its  consent.  This 
power  is  not  derived  fi'om  the  constitution.  It  existed  when  there 
was  but  one  presbytery ;  and  would  exist  if  all  the  presbyteries  were 
independent  of  each  other.  To  them  it  belongs  to  license,  ordain, 
install,  remove  and  judge  ministers.  So  far  from  deriving  this  power 
from  the  constitution,  it  is  thereby  greatly  restricted.  They  cannot 
license  and  ordain  whom  they  please,  but  those  only  who  have  certain 
prescribed  qualifications. 

The  Synod  is  in  fact  a  larger  presbytery,  and  would  have  precisely 
the  same  authority,  did  not  the  constitution,  for  the  sake  of  convenience 
make  a  distinction  of  powers  between  it  and  the  presbyteries.  A  synod 
is  not  called  to  exercise  the  power  of  licensing,  ordaining,  &c.  &c.,  be- 
cause this  power  can  better  be  exercised  by  smaller  councils.     It  has 


180  CHURCH  POLITY. 

jurisdiction  not  only  as  an  appellate  court,  but  as  a  court  of  review  and 
control.  It  can  order  tlie  presbyteries  to  produce  their  records ;  it  can 
"  redress  whatever  has  been  done  by  presbyteries  contrary  to  order ; 
and  take  effectual  care  that  presbyteries  observe  the  constitution  of  the 
Church  .  .  .  and  generally  take  such  order  with  respect  to  the  pres- 
byteries, sessions  and  people  under  their  care,  as  may  be  in  conformity 
with  the  word  of  God  and  the  established  rules,  and  Avhich  tend  to  pro- 
mote the  edification  of  the  Church."     Chap.  11.  §  4. 

The  General  Assembly  is  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  "  represents,  in  one  body,  all  the  particular  churches  of 
this  denomination."  To  it  belongs,  therefore,  the  power  which  the 
Confession  of  Faith  ascribes  to  all  synods,  restricted  by  the  provisions 
of  the  constitution.  It  can  make  no  regulation  infringing  on  the  privi- 
leges of  the  lower  courts ;  nor  can  it  in  any  way  alter  or  add  to  the 
code  of  constitutional  rules.  But  its  power  as  the  supreme  court  of 
appeals,  review  and  control  continues.  It  is  charged  with  "  superin- 
tending the  concerns  of  the  whole  Church,"  and  with  "suppressing 
schismatical  contentions  and  disputations."  See  chap.  12.  "  It  may 
send  missions  to  any  part  to  plant  churches,  or  to  supply  vacancies ; 
and,  for  this  purpose,  may  direct  any  presbytery  to  ordain  evangelists, 
or  ministers,  without  relation  to  particular  churches."  Chap.  18. 
This  would  be  strange  language  in  reference  to  a  mere  advisory 
council!  The  power,  here  recognised  as  belonging  to  the  General 
Assembly,  will  appear  to  be  the  greater,  if  we  remember  that  the  ordi- 
nation of  any  minister  sine  titulo  was  considered  as  hardly  consistent 
with  presbyterial  principles;  and  that  the  presbyteries  were  very 
adverse  to  admit  it.  Yet  the  Assembly  is  acknowledged  to  have  the 
power  to  direct  them  to  do  it. 

In  exercising  the  right  of  supervision  and  control,  the  higher  courts, 
depend,  in  general,  on  the  regular  means  of  information  which  they 
possess  in  the  review  of  the  records  of  the  inferior  judicatories,  and  in 
the  exercise  by  those  aggrieved  of  the  right  of  appeal,  reference  and 
complaint.  In  case,  however,  of  neglect,  unfaithfulness,  or  irregularity 
of  a  lower  court,  a  higher  one  has  the  right,  when  well  advised  of  the 
existence  of  these  evils,  "to  take  cognizance  of  the  same;  and  to  ex- 
amine, deliberate  and  judge  in  the  whole  matter,  as  completely  as  if  it 
had  been  recorded,  and  thus  brought  up  by  the  review  of  records."* 
That  is,  it  is  iucumbent  on  them,  as  the  constitution  expresses  it,  to 
take  effectual  care  that  the  lower  judicatories  observe  the  constitution 
of  the  Church. 

Such  is  Presbyterianism  as  laid  down  in  our  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Form  of  Government.     Such  it  was  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  and 

*  Book  II.  chap.  7.  §  1.  par.  5 


HISTORY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  igl 

such  we  trust  it  will  long  continue  to  be.  "We  shall  now  proceed  to 
adduce  some  small  portion  of  the  overwhelming  evidence  with  which 
our  records  abound,  that  this  has  always  been  the  interpretation  put 
upon  our  system  of  government ;  and  that  this  modern  theory  of  mere 
appellate  jurisdiction  and  advisory  power  is  unsustained  by  the  prac- 
tice, as  it  is  by  the  standards  of  the  Church. 

Ko  one  can  open  the  records  of  the  proceedings  either  of  the  old 
S}Tiod,  or  of  the  General  Assembly,  without  being  struck  with  the  fact 
that  the  phraseology  adopted  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  those 
bodies  claimed  merely  advisory  powers.  It  is  competent  to  a  body 
having  authority  to  command,  to  recommend  or  advise ;  but  it  is  not 
competent  to  a  body  having  power  only  to  give  advice,  to  "  direct," 
"  order,"  or  "  enjoin."  Yet  such  language  is  used  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  our  records.  These  orders  relate  to  all  manner  of  sub- 
jects, and  are  given  not  only  when  the  higher  judicatory  acted  as  a 
court  of  reference  or  appeals,  but  also  in  its  character  of  the  superin- 
tending and  governing  body.  It  is  not  worth  while,  however,  to 
adduce  evidence  of  this  kind,  because  this  phraseology  will  be  found 
incorporated  in  passages  cited  for  a  more  important  purpose;  and 
because  it  is  so  settled  thg,t  we  find  even  the  New  School  Assembly,  at 
their  late  meeting,  resolving,  1.  "That  presbyteries  are  hereby  re- 
quired to  cause  each  church  and  congregation  under  their  care  and 
jurisdiction  to  make  an  annual  contribution  to  the  contingent  fund  of 
the  General  Assembly.  2.  That  the  presbyteries  are  enjoined  to 
send  a  copy  of  the  above  preamble  and  resolution  to  the  several 
churches  under  their  care,  &c."  This  is  certainly  strange  language  in 
which  to  convey  advice. 

The  examples  we  shall  cite  of  the  exercise  of  authority  on  the  part 
of  the  higher  judicatories,  do  not  admit  of  being  arranged  under  dis- 
tinct heads.  The  same  example  will  often  prove  all  the  several  points 
in  dispute ;  the  legislative  power  of  Church  courts  ;  the  authority  of  the 
higher  over  the  lower ;  and  the  right  of  the  supreme  judicatory  to  take 
effectual  care  that  the  constitution  be  observed  in  all  parts  of  the 
Church. 

In  1758,  by  a  joint  act  at  the  time  of  their  union,  the  old  synods  of 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  ordered  "  That  no  presbytery  shall  li- 
cense or  ordain  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  any  candidate,  until  he  give 
them  competent  satisfaction  as  to  his  learning,  and  experimental  ac- 
quaintance with  religion,  and  skill  in  divinity  and  cases  of  conscience, 
and  declare  his  acceptance  of  the  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  Catechisms,  as  the  confession  of  his  faith,  and  promise  subjection 
to  the  Presbyterian  plan  of  government  in  the  "Westminster  Directory," 
Digest  p.  119.  [Digest,  of  1873,  p.  49.]  As  this  resolution,  which  was  one 


182  CHUECH  POLITY. 

of  the  terms  of  union  between  the  two  synods,  was  adopted  first  by  one 
synod  and  then  by  the  other ;  and  then  unanimously  by  the  two  united, 
there  could  hardly  have  been  a  man  in  the  Church  who  denied  the  leg- 
islative and  controlling  power  of  the  higher  courts. 

In  1764,  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  "established 
a  rule,"  giving  particular  directions  to  the  presbyteries,  with  regard 
to  candidates  for  the  ministry;  in  1792,  the  Assembly  confirmed 
it,  by  enjoining,  "in  the  most  pointed  manner,  on  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  to  give  particular  attention  that  no  presbytery  under 
their  care  depart,  in  any  respect,  from  that  rule  of  the  former  Synod 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  which  is,"  &c.  Then  follows  the 
rule,  p.  63. 

In  the  same  year  the  old  Synod  adopted  another  rule,  which  we  com- 
mend to  the  attention  of  those  who  long  for  the  Presbyterianism  of  for- 
mer times :  "  Though  the  Synod  entertain  a  high  regard  for  the  Associ- 
ated Churches  of  New  England,  yet  we  cannot  but  judge,  that  students 
■who  go  to  them,  or  to  any  other  than  our  own  presbyteries,  to  obtain 
license,  in  order  to  return  and  officiate  among  us,  act  very  irregularly 
and  are  not  to  he  approved  or  employed  by  our  presbyteries ;  as  hereby 
we  are  deprived  of  the  right  of  trying  and  approving  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  our  own  candidates ;  yet  if  any  cases  shall  happen,  where  such 
conduct  may  be  thought  necessary  for  the  greater  good  of  any  congre- 
gation, it  shall  be  laid  before  the  presbytery  to  which  the  congregation 
belongs,  and  approved  by  them."  p,  65. 

In  1764,  the  old  Synod  also  adopted  a  rule  for  the  government  of 
Presbyteries  in  the  reception  of  foreign  ministers  and  licentiates.  This 
rule  was  explained  in  1765;  and  in  1774  they  adopted  a  set  of  regula- 
tions which  were  unanimously  approved.  The  following  is  an  extract : 
"  In  order  more  effectually  to  preserve  this  Synod,  our  presbyteries  and 
congregations  from  imposition  and  abuse,  every  year,  when  any  pres- 
bytery may  report  that  they  have  received  any  minister  or  probationer 
from  a  foreign  Church,  that  presbytery  shall  lay  before  the  Synod  the 
testimonials  and  other  certificates,  upon  which  they  received  such 
minister  or  probationer,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Synod,  before  such 
minister  or  probationer  shall  be  considered  as  a  member  of  our  body. 
And  if  the  Synod  shall  find  such  testimonials  false  or  insufficient,  the 
whole  proceedings  held  by  the  presbytery  on  the  admission  shall  be  held 
to  be  void ;  and  the  presbytery  shall  not,  from  that  time,  receive  or  ac- 
knowledge him  as  a  member  of  this  body,  or  as  in  ministerial  commu- 
nion with  us,"  p.  286.  Let  it  be  observed  that  these  regulations  were 
unanimously  approved ;  and  yet  what  power  do  they  suppose  the  Synod 
to  possess  over  the  presbyteries ;  denying  to  the  lower  courts  the  right 
of  judging  for  themselves  whether  a  member  was  qualified  or  not;  and 


HISTORY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  183 

pronouncing  their  decision  void  ab  initio,  if  it  should  meet  the  ajiproba- 
tion  of  the  higher  court. 


In  1794,  at  the  request  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  the  Assembly 
divided  the  Presbytery  of  Carlisle  ;  in  1802  the  Presbytery  of  Albany 
requested  to  be  divided,  which  request  the  Assembly  granted  (see  pp. 
55,  57)  ;  and  in  1805  the  Assembly  divided  the  Presbytery  of  Oneida, 
constituting  the  one  portion  into  the  Presbytery  of  Geneva,  and  the 
other  into  the  Presbytery  of  Oneida,  directing  them  where  to  hold  their 
first  meeting,  &c.  See  Minutes,  vol.  II.  p.  82.  We  do  not  pretend  to 
give  more  than  specimens  of  the  jurisdiction  and  power  unhesitatingly 
exercised  by  the  Assembly  in  former  days. 

In  1795,  a  request  was  overtured  that  the  synods  of  Virginia  and  the 
Carolinas  have  liberty  to  direct  their  presbyteries  to  ordain  such  candi- 
dates as  they  may  judge  necessary  to  appoint  on  missions  to  preach  the 
gospel;  Avhereupon,  "Resolved,  That  the  above  request  be  granted.  The 
synods  being  careful  to  restrict  the  permission  to  the  ordination  of  such 
candidates  only  as  are  engaged  to  be  sent  on  missions,"  p.  48. 

In  1798,  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  presented  to  the  Assembly  cer- 
tain references  and  inquiries  relating  to  a  creed  published  by  the  Rev. 
H.  B.;  which  were  referred  to  a  committee,  of  which  Dr.  M'Whorter, 
of  Newark,  was  chairman.  This  committee  made  a  report,  stating  that 
Mr.  B.  is  erroneous  "  in  making  disinterested  benevolence  the  only  defi- 
nition of  holiness,"  and  that  he  "  has  confounded  self-love  with 
selfishness."  On  the  third  article  the  committee  remark,  "  that 
the  transfer  of  personal  sin  or  righteousness  has  never  been  held  by 
any  Calvinistic  divines,  nor  by  any  person  in  our  Church  as  far  as  is 
known  to  us;  and  therefore  that  Mr.  B.'s  observations  on  this  subject 
appear  to  be  either  nugatory  or  calculated  to  mislead."  They  condemn, 
however,  his  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  "  in  efiect  setting  aside  the  idea 
of  Adam's  being  the  federal  head  or  representative  of  his  descendants, 
and  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works."  They  say  also, 
*'  that  Mr.  B.  is  greatly  erroneous  in  asserting  that  the  formal  cause  of 
a  believer's  justification  is  the  imputation  of  the  fruits  or  effects  of 
Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  that  righteousness  itself"  These  are  the 
principal  errors  specified.  The  committee  recommend,  "  that  Mr.  B. 
be  required  to  acknowledge  before  the  Assembly  that  he  was  wrong  in 
publishing  his  creed ;  that  in  the  particulars  specified  above,  he  re- 
nounce the  errors  therein  pointed  out ;  that  he  engage  to  teach  noth- 
ing hereafter  of  a  similar  nature,  &c.  &c. ;  and  that  if  Mr.  B,  submit 
to  this  he  be  considered  in  good  standing  with  the  Church."     This  re- 


184  CHURCH  POLITY. 

port  was  adopted,*  and  Mr.  B.  having  been  called  before  the  Assem- 
bly, and  allowed  time  for  consideration,  made  a  declaration  containing 
the  required  acknowledgments,  retractions,  and  engagements,  and  was 
then  pronounced  in  good  standing.  Digest,  pp.  129—134,  \_Diged  of 
1873,  pp.  220—222.  ] 

This  case  is  cited  as  an  illustration  of  the  kind  of  supervision  for- 
merly exercised  by  our  supreme  judicatory.  On  the  mere  reference  by 
a  lower  court,  in  relation  to  a  certain  publication,  it  is  taken  up  and  ex- 
amined, certain  erroneous  propositions  extracted,  and  the  author  imme- 
diately called  up  and  required  to  retract  them  on  the  penalty  of  being 
turned  out  of  the  Church. 

:ic******* 

In  1799,  a  committee  presented  a  report  containing  sundry  recom- 
mendations and  injunctions  respecting  the  qualifications  of  candidates 
for  the  ministry;  the  support  of  ministers;  contributions  to  missions, 
&c.  This  report  being  read  it  was  resolved,  "  That  it  be  approved  and 
adopted;  and  ordered  that  the  several  synods,  presbyteries,  and  uidi- 
vidual  churches,  as  far  as  they  are  respectively  concerned,  govern 
themselves  accordingly."  p.  81. 

The  Presbytery  of  Cumberland  having  "licensed  and  ordained  a 
number  of  persons  not  possessing  the  qualifications  required  by  our 
book  of  discipline,  and  without  explicit  adoption  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,"  it  was  for  these  and  other  irregularities  dissolved  by  the  Synod 
of  Kentucky,  and  the  irregularly  ordained  ministers  suspended  with- 
out process.  When  these  facts  came  up  before  the  Assembly,  on  a  re- 
view of  the  records  of  the  synod,  the  Assembly  addressed  that  judica- 
tory a  letter,  in  which  their  zeal  and  decision  were  commended,  but 
the  opinion  expressed  that  the  suspension  of  ordained  ministers  with- 
out process,  was  "  at  least  of  doubtful  regularity."  This  letter  was 
written  in  1807.  We  find  no  mention  of  this  case  in  1808,  either  in 
the  Digest  or  in  the  printed  Minutes  for  that  year.  But  in  1809  there 
is  a  record  to  this  effect :  "  That  the  Assembly  took  into  consideration 
a  letter  from  the  Synod  of  Kentucky ;  and  having  carefully  reviewed 

*  Two  members  only  dissented,  of  whom  one  was  Mr.  Langdon,  a  delegate 
from  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut.  This  record  is  in  many  points  of 
view  instructive.  We  see  that  doctrines,  which  are  taught  in  our  day  with  per- 
fect impunity,  were  formerly  regarded  as  entirely  inconsistent  with  a  good  stand- 
ing in  the  Church.  It  is  foreign  from  our  present  purpose,  but  we  should  be  glad 
to  have  an  opportunity  at  some  future  time,  to  produce  some  of  the  evidence 
with  which  our  history  abounds,  that  our  Church  was  for  a  long  series  of  years 
more  strict  in  demanding  conformity  to  our  doctrinal  standards  than  it  is  now  ; 
and  that  as  it  became  lax  in  matters  of  government,  it  became  pari  passu  lax  in 
doctrine. 


HISTOEY  AND  INTENT  OF    CONSTITUTION.  185 

the  same,  and  also  having  read  another  letter  from  their  records,  which 
by  accident  was  detained  from  the  last  Assembly,"  &c.,  they  declared 
themselves  "perfectly  satisfied  with  the  conduct  of  the  synod,  and 
thank  them  for  their  firmness  and  zeal."  p.  140.  Here  then  is  a  sy- 
nod receiving  thanks  for  dissolving  a  presbytery,  which,  according  to 
the  new  theory  of  Presbyterianism,  was  entirely  independent  of  it,  and 
for  exercising  the  right  of  suspending,  instanter,  ministers  irregularly 
ordained. 

In  1809,  the  Assembly  resolved,  "That  it  be  again  solemnly  en- 
joined on  all  presbyteries  and  synods  within  the  bounds  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  on  no  account  to  interfere  with  the  instructions  given  by 
the  Committee  of  Missions  to  missionaries."  p.  50.  "What  a  control- 
ling superintendence  and  authority  is  assumed  in  this  resolution! 

In  1809  the  Assembly  resolved  "  That  it  be  and  is  hereby  required 
of  all  presbyteries  -vvithin  the  bounds  of  the  General  Assembly,  annu- 
ally to  call  up  and  examine  the  sessional  records  of  the  several 
churches  under  their  care,  as  directed  in  the  book  of  discipline."  In 
the  following  year  "  the  presbyteries  were  called  upon  to  report  what 
attention  they  had  severally  paid  to  the  order  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  relation  to  sessional  records.  Upon  inquiry  it  appeared  that  the 
presbyteries  had  almost  universally  complied  with  the  order."  A  com- 
mittee w^as  appointed  to  consider  this  subject,  who  brought  in  a  report, 
which  was  read  and  adopted,  and  is  as  follows :  "  The  Assembly,  after 
seriously  reviewing  the  order  of  the  last  Assembly,  can  by  no  means 
rescind  the  said  order ;  inasmuch  as  they  consider  it  as  founded  on  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  and  as  properly  resulting  from  the  obliga- 
tion on  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church,  to  see  that  the  constitution 
be  duhj  regarded,  yet  as  it  is  alleged  that  insisting  on  the  rigid  execu- 
tion of  this  order  with  respect  to  some  church  sessions  would  not  be  for 
edification,  the  Assembly  are  by  no  means  disposed  to  urge  any  presby- 
tery to  proceed  under  this  order  beyond  what  they  may  consider  pru- 
dent and  useful."  p.  73.  It  is  here  taken  for  granted,  and  appealed  to 
as  a  justification  for  a  particular  act,  that  the  obligation  rests  on  the 
highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  "  to  see  that  the  constitution  be  duly 
regarded." 

In  1810,  the  Presbytery  of  Hartford  requested  leave  to  ordain  Mr. 
Robert  Sample  sine  titulo,  whereupon  the  Assembly  resolved  "  That 
said  presbytery  he  permitted  to  ordain  Mr.  Sample,  if  they  judge  it 
expedient." 

Page  214  of  the  Digest  contains  this  record.  "  The  following  ex- 
tract from  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Oneida  was  overtured,  viz.: 
*  Ordered  that  our  commissioners  to  the  next  General  Assembly  be 
instructed  to  request  the  Assembly  (risum  teneatis  amici)  to  permit  this 


136  CHURCH  POLITY. 

presbytery  to  manage  their  own  missionary  concerns.'"  "Was  this 
humble  request  granted?  Not  at  all.  The  presbytery  was  referred 
to  the  Board  of  Missions !  This  was  so  recently  as  1818,  and  proves 
how  much  of  the  old  spirit  of  Presbyterianism  was  still  alive  in  the 
Church.  ********** 
So  rapidly  and  so  completely  has  the  spirit  of  our  Church  changed, 
that  we  do  not  believe  there  is  now  a  presbytery  in  our  land,  which 
would  not  consider  itself  insulted  by  a  proposal  that  they  should  request 
permission  to  manage  their  own  missionary  concerns. 

The  whole  history  of  this  subject  of  missions  is  full  of  instruction  as 
to  the  relation  in  which  the  Assembly  was  regarded  as  standing  to  the 
Church.  That  judicatory,  for  a  long  time,  appointed  the  missionaries 
by  name,  assigned  them  their  field  of  labor ;  if  they  were  pastors,  the 
Assembly  either  appointed  supplies  for  their  pulpits,  during  their  tour 
of  duty,  directing  such  a  minister  to  preach  on  such  a  Sabbath,  or  they 
directed  the  presbytery  to  make  the  requisite  appointments  for  this 
purpose.  *  In  short  they  exercised  without  let  or  contradiction,  a  su- 
perintending control  of  the  whole  Church,  ordering  synods,  presbyte- 
ries and  individual  ministers  as  familiarly  as  any  presbytery  ever  does 
its  own  members. 


The  power  of  the  Assembly  to  make  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
Church,  is  assumed,  in  the  clearest  manner,  in  that  section  which  for- 
bids their  making  "  constitutional  rules "  without  the  consent  of  the 
presbyteries.  That  section,  in  the  old  book,  is  labeled  "  Restriction  of 
the  power  of  the  Assembly."  Why  restrict  the  exercise  of  a  power 
which  does  not  exist?  Why  say  the  Assembly  shall  not  make  a  par- 
ticular class  of  rules,  if  it  can  make  no  rules  at  all  ?  There  is  however 
an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  this. section  which  estab- 
lishes the  legislative  power  of  the  Assembly  beyond  dispute.  In  1798 
the  General  Assembly  adopted  certain  "regulations  intended  to  em- 
brace and  extend  the  existing  rules,  respecting  the  reception  of  foreign 

*  Se9,  for  example,  pp.  132,  133  of  vol.  II.  of  tte  Minutes.  "Eesolved,  That 
Kev.  John  H.  Rice  spend  two  months  as  a  missionary,  &c.  That  Rev.  John 
Lyle  serve  two  months,  &c.  That  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  be  authorized  to . 
employ  a  missionary  to  be  paid  out  of  the  funds  of  the  Assembly.  That  the 
Presbytery  of  Geneva  take  measures  for  appointing  supplies  for  Mr.  Chapman's 
pulpit.  That  Mr.  Alexander,  Mr.  Todd,  and  Mr.  John  H.  Rice,  be  a  committee 
to  appoint  supplies  for  Mr.  Rice's  pulpit,"  &c.  &c.  &c.  And  on  p.  16,  ''  Re- 
solved, That  the  following  ministers  be  appointed,  and  they  hereby  are  appoin- 
ted, to  supply  the  pulpits  of  Dr.  Read  and  Mr.  Arthur  during  their  missionary 
tour — Mr.  Collins  first  Sabbath,  Mr.  Latta  the  second,"  &c.  &c. 


HISTORY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  187 

ministers  and  licentiates."  These  regulations*  effectually  control 
the  action  of  the  presbyteries,  forbidding  them  to  receive  any  foreign 
minister  or  probationer  "  on  a  mere  certificate  of  good  standing ; "  pre- 
scribing the  kind  of  trials  to  which  he  shall  be  subjected ;  directing 
that  he  should  be  received  in  the  first  instance,  only  on  probation, 
and  not  be  allowed  to  vote  in  any  judicatory,  or  accept  of  any  call  for 
settlement ;  requiring  this  probation  to  continue  for  at  least  one  year ; 
directing  the  presbytery  then  to  take  up  the  case,  renew  the  examina- 
tion, and  determine  "  to  receive  him,  to  reject  him,  or  to  hold  him 
under  further  probation."  In  case  the  applicant  was  received,  the 
presbytery  was  to  report  the  case  with  all  the  evidence  to  the  synod  or 
General  Assembly,  who  were  "  to  come  to  a  final  judgment,  either  to 
receive  him  into  the  Presbyterian  body  agreeably  to  his  standing,  or 
to  reject  him,"  notwithstanding  his  reception  by  the  presbytery.  Here 
then  is  the  exercise  of  legislative  authority  over  the  whole  Church ; 
here  is  control  of  presbyteries  as  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  rights ; 
here  is  an  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the  supreme  judicatory  felt 
authorized  to  take  care  that  the  constitution  should  be  observed  in  all 
parts  of  the  Church.  Was  this  exercise  of  power  sustained  ?  We  shall 
see.  In  the  following  year,  that  is,  in  1799,  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  objected  to  these  regulations,  and  requested  the  General  Assem- 
bly to  rescind  them.  This  request  was  refused.  The  principal  objec- 
tion urged  against  them  by  the  presbytery  was,  that  the  constitution 
pro^'ides  that  before  any  standing  rules  should  be  obligatory  on  the 
churches,  they  must  be  submitted  to  the  presbyteries.  To  this  the 
Assembly  answered  ;  that  "  standing  rules,"  in  the  sense  of  the  Book, 
were  "  articles  of  the  constitution,  which  when  once  established  are  un- 
alterable by  the  Assembly."  Such  rules  the  Assembly  cannot  make. 
But  to  say  that  it  cannot  make  of  its  own  authority  any  rules  binding 
on  the  churches,  "  would  be  to  reduce  this  Assembly  to  a  mere  com- 
mittee to  prepare  business  upon  which  the  presbyteries  might  act.  It 
would  undo,  with  few  exceptions,  all  the  rules  that  have  been  estab- 
lished by  this  Assembly  since  its  first  institution Besides  stand- 
ing rules,  in  the  evident  sense  of  the  constitution,  cannot  be  predicated 
of  any  act  made  by  the  Assembly,  and  repealable  by  it,  because  they 
are  limited  from  their  very  nature  to  the  duration  of  a  year,  if  it 
please  the  Assembly  to  exert  the  power  inherent  in  it  at  all  times  to 
alter  or  annul  them,  and  they  continue  to  be  rules  only  by  the  Assem- 
bly's not  using  its  power  of  repeal."  In  order  to  prevent  all  doubt  on 
this  subject  in  future,  the  Assembly  proposed  to  the  presbyteries  this 
article  of  the  constitution  for  "  their  interpretation,"  and  advised  them 
to  strike  out  the  word  standing  and  to  insert  the  word  constitutionaL 
*  See  printed  Minutes  for  1798. 


188  CHURCH  POLITY. 

This  alteration  the  presbyteries  accordingly  made;  and  the  expres- 
sion "  constitutional  rules "  remains  to  this  day.*  Can  there  be  a 
clearer  proof  than  this  of  the  legislative  authority  of  the  Assembly,  or 
of  its  official  acknowledgment  by  the  presbyteries  ?  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  this  was  no  new  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly  of  1798. 
The  same  power  had  been  always  claimed  and  exercised  by  the  old 
Synod  and  by  the  General  Assembly  from  its  first  institution. 

It  is  time,  however,  to  bring  these  citations  to  an  end.  We  should 
have  to  transcribe  the  records  of  the  Church  bodily,  if  we  were  to  exhi- 
bit all  the  evidence  which  they  contain  on  this  subject.  The  origin, 
the  constitution,  the  uniform  practice  of  our  Church,  therefore,  prove 
that  our  judicatories  are  not  independent  of  each  other;  that  the  high- 
er bodies  are  not  mere  courts  of  appeal  and  advisory  councils;  but 
that  it  belongs  to  them  to  set  down  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
Church,  which,  if  consonant  with  the  word  of  God,  and  our  written 
constitution,  are  to  be  received  with  reverence  and  submission  out  of 
regard  to  the  authority  of  these  courts.  It  is  their  duty  to  take  effec- 
tual care  that  the  constitution  is  observed  in  all  parts  of  the  Church. 

The  doctrines  of  this  pamphlet  are  not  only  inconsistent  with  the 
origin,  constitution  and  practice  of  the  Church,  they  are  moreover 
absolutely  destructive  of  its  character.  According  to  the  constitution, 
the  General  Assembly  is  the  bond  of  union  and  confidence  between  all 
the  churches.  It  makes  us  one  denomination.  It  is  such  a  bond,  by 
enabling  the  whole  Church,  of  which  it  is  the  representative,  to  take 
effectual  care  that  the  constitution,  as  to  doctrine  and  order,  is  ob- 
served within  all  our  bounds.  But  according  to  the  new  theory,  we 
are  not  one  denomination ;  we  are  an  aggregate  of  a  number  of  inde- 
pendent presbyteries.  "If  a  presbytery  license,  ordain,  or  receive  a 
minister,  or  organize  or  acknowledge  a  church,  *  *  *  *  the  act  must 
be  forever  valid,  however  ill-advised  or  censurable  it  may  be."  p.  9."}" 
The  whole  Church  then  is  completely  at  the  mercy  of  one  presbytery. 

*  See  Digest,  p.  285—290.     \_Dlgest  of  1873,  pp.  325,  326]. 

t  We  see  on  p.  29  of  this  Review  a  reference  to  a  decision  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly in  1816,  in  support  of  this  doctrine.  The  Presbytery  of  Geneva  having  im- 
properly admitted  a  minister,  were  ordered  by  the  synod  to  reconsider  its  deci- 
sion. The  Assembly  disapproved  of  this  order,  and  say,  "  That  the  right  of 
deciding  on  the  fitness  of  admitting  Mr.  Wells  a  constituent  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Geneva,  belonged  to  the  presbytery  itself,  and  that  having  admitted 
him,  no  matter  how  improvidently,  their  decision  was  valid  and  final  ....  the 
presbytery  could  not,  though  it  should  reconsider,  reverse  its  own  decision,  or  in 
any  way  sever  the  member  so  admitted,  from  their  body,  except  by  regular  pro- 
cess." Digest,  p.  324.  This  decision  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  case  in  hand. 
There  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  an  improvident  act,  and  an  un- 


HISTOEY  AND  INTENT  OF  CONSTITUTION.  I39 

Certain  presbyteries  in  the  northwest  have  formed  or  acknowledged 
some  three  or  four  hundred  Congregational  churches ;  and  in  spite  of 
the  constitution,  in  spite  of  the  contract  between  the  presbyteries,  in 
defiance  of  the  authority  of  the  General  Assembly,  these  churches 
must  forever  remain  invested  with  all  the  privileges  of  Presbyterian 
congregations;  thus  introducing  into  our  judicatories  and  into  the  con- 
stituency of  the  General  Assembly,  three  or  four  hundred  men  who  do 
not  adopt  our  standards  either  of  doctrine  or  government.  On  this 
priuciple,  if  the  Third  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  excess  of  its 
liberality,  were  to  acknowledge  all  the  Baptist  churches  of  its  own 
city,  or  all  the  Unitarian  churches  of  Boston,  the  act  would  be  valid, 
and  these  churches  be  forever  entitled  to  representation  in  the  Presby- 
terian body.  Or  if  a  presbytery  become  Socinian  there  is  no  help  for 
it.  They  would  not  sustain  charges  against  their  own  members ;  and 
they  cannot  be  tried,  dissolved  or  disowned  as  a  body.  Neither  synod 
nor  General  Assembly  has  power  to  enforce  the  constitution.  They 
can  only  look  on  in  silence,  and  see  this  presbytery  increase  year  after 
year,  and  sending  Socinian  ministers  and  elders  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  a  Calvinistic  Church.  It  is  enough  to  awake  the  ashes  of  our 
fathers  to  have  such  doctrines  set  forth  as  Presbyterianism,  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church  which  they  founded  with  so  much  care,  and 
guarded  with  so  much  strictness.  This  is  not  Presbyterianism;  and 
those  who  maintain  these  opinions  are  not  Presbyterians. 

constitutional  one.  The  member  in  question  was  objected  to  as  of  "suspicious 
character."  It  is  one  thing  to  turn  a  man  out  of  the  Church  or  presbytery  on  the 
ground  of  character,  without  process;  and  another  to  set  aside  his  admission  as 
unconstitutional.  Because  a  presbytery  has  a  right  to  judge  of  the  qualification 
of  its  own  members,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  may  admit  a  man  without  ordina- 
tion, or  without  the  adoption  of  the  standards.  Any  such  act  may  be  declared  void 
at  once ;  and  the  member  be  excluded.  It  was  thus  that  the  Synod  of  Kentucky 
suspended  from  the  ministry  in  our  Church,  men  ordained  without  having  adopt- 
ed the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  were  thanked  for  so  doing  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. And  in  1798  it  was  decided  that  elders  unconstitutionally  ordained, 
remained  private  members  of  the  Church.  See  Digest,  p.  322.  [See  Digest  of 
1873,  p.  337.] 


CHAPTER  XII. 

A    PARTICULAR    CHURCH. 

§  1.  Tbe  Session  says  wlio  are  Chnrcli  llei)ibers.[*] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  ix.,  sec.  vi. — Covip.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  127,  129,  574.] 
[Overture  No.  3]  was  a  memorial  from  the  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  asking  the  General  Assembly  to  take  such  action  in  the 
case  of  members  of  the  Church  who  remove,  without  certificate,  or  who 
fail,  for  a  length  of  time,  to  attend  upon  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel, 
as  will  secure  constitutional  and  uniform  action  throughout  the  Pres- 
byterian churches. 

"  As  there  is  no  provision  in  our  Form  of  Government,  or  Discipline,  to  meet 
such  cases,  and  as  it  would  be  inexpedient  for  the  General  Assembly  to  make  a 
regulation  on  the  subject,  which  would  have  the  force  of  a  constitutional  rule, 
the  Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures  recommended  that  the  following  be  sent 
down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their  decision : 

"  Shall  the  form  of  government  be  amended  by  adding  this  clause  at  the  end 
of  chapter  9  ? 

"  Sec.  6.  They  shall  also  have  power  to  remove  from  the  list  of  communicants, 
those  who  by  long  continued  absence,  without  a  regular  dismission  or  other  equiv- 
alent causes,  are  improper  persons  to  be  retained  as  members  of  the  Church."  [The 
recommendation  was  laid  on  the  table.] 

It  seems  to  us  that  there  is  a  wrong  principle  in  this  overture  and  in 
the  answer  which  it  was  proposed  should  be  given  to  it.  There  are 
two  distinct  theories  respecting  our  ecclesiastical  constitution.  The 
one  is  that  it  is  the  grant  of  powers ;  the  other  is  that  it  is  a  limitation 
of  powers,  i.  e.,  a  treaty  entered  into  by  primary  Church  organizations 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  exercise  the  powers  inherent  in 
them  and  derived  from  Christ.  The  latter  is  unquestionably  the  true 
view.  A  Church  session  does  not  derive  its  power  to  admit  members 
or  exercise  discipline  from  the  constitution.  The  constitution  simply 
states  that  such  and  such  powers  pertain  to  a  Church  session ;  and  the 
various  Church  sessions  embraced  under  the  constitution  agree  to  ex- 

[*From  Article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  "  /  Topic,  "  Overture  No,  3. — On  Church 
Members  ;  "  Princeton  Beview,  1850,  p.  468.] 
190 


VALIDITY  OF  ROMISH  BAPTISM.  191 

ercise  those  powers  in  a  certain  way.  Neither  does  a  presbytery  derive 
from  the  constitution  the  right  to  ordain  or  to  depose  from  the  ministry. 
If  independent  it  could  exercise  those  rights  at  discretion ;  but  when 
associated  with  other  presbyteries  interested  in  its  acts,  it  stipulates  that 
it  will  ordain  only  under  such  and  such  circumstances.  The  reason  of 
this  is  obvious,  a  man  ordained  by  one  presbytery  becomes,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  synod,  a  judge  over  the  members  of  other  presbyteries.  They 
therefore,  have  a  right  to  a  voice  in  the  matter.  Hence  all  presbyte- 
ries thus  associated  enter  into  an  agreement  as  to  what  qualifications 
they  will  demand  in  candidates  for  ordination,  and  in  general  as  to  the 
principles  on  which  they  will  exercise  their  presbyterial  powers.  And 
such  an  agreement  is  their  constitution.  It  is  not  therefore  a  grant  of 
powers,  but  a  stipulation  between  the  associated  presbyteries  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  they  will  exercise  the  powers  inherent  in  them.  It 
follows  from  this  that  a  session  or  presbytery  is  simply  bound  by  con- 
tract not  to  violate  the  constitution,  but  the  exercise  of  its  prerogatives 
is  not  circumscribed  by  that  instrument.  It  can  do  what  it  pleases,  as 
a  Church  court,  provided  it  infringes  on  no  article  of  its  contract  with 
other  courts,  and  on  no  principle  of  the  word  of  God.  It  has  no  need 
therefore  to  go  to  the  General  Assembly  to  ask  power  to  do  what  from 
its  very  nature  as  a  Church  court  it  has  the  right  to  do.  A  session 
must  have  a  right  to  say  who  are  the  members  of  the  church  over  which 
it  presides.  It  might  as  well  ask  for  power  to  erase  from  its  roll  the 
names  of  the  dead,  as  to  seek  authority  to  say  that  those  who  have  left 
them  and  wandered  off  no  one  knows  where,  have  left  them,  and  are  no 
longer  under  their  watch  and  care.  The  memorial,  however,  seems  to 
assume  that  no  session  has  any  power  in  the  premises  but  what  it  de- 
rives from  the  constitution;  and  the  committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures 
proposed  to  add  a  section  to  that  instrument  to  the  effect  that  Church 
sessions  "  shall  have  power  to  remove  from  the  list  of  communicants 
those  who  from  long  absence,"  &c.,  as  though  such  assumption  were 
correct.  According  to  our  view  the  sessions  have  all  the  power  they 
need  in  this  matter  inherent  in  themselves,  and  we  therefore  rejoice 
that  the  overture  was  rejected  by  the  Assembly. 

§  3.    Validity  of  Romisli  Baptism.  [*] 

[Directory  for  Worship,    chap,  vii.,  sec.  1.— Digest  of  1873,  pp.  660-663.] 

The  question  as  to  the  validity  of  baptism  as  administered  by  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  priest  was  brought  before  the  Assembly,  by  an  overture 
from  the  Presbytery  of  Ohio,  which  gave  rise  to  a  long  and  interesting 

[*  From  Article  on  '*2%e  General  Assembly;"  topic  same;  Princeton  Review, 
1845,  p.  444.] 


192  CHURCH  POLITY. 

debate.  Drs.  Junkin  and  N.  Rice,  Professor  Thorn-well,  Dr.  McGill, 
and  others  advocated  the  negative  of  the  question ;  Dr.  Lord,  Mr.  Ait- 
ken,  and  a  few  others  the  affirmative.  In  favour  of  returning  a  nega- 
tive answer  to  the  question,  the  votes  were  169,  against  8,  non  liquet  6. 
We  feel  almost  overwhelmed  by  such  a  vote.  Any  decision  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  is  entitled  to  great  respect,  but  a  decision  sustained  by 
such  a  majority,  almost  imposes  silence  on  all  dissentients.  And  yet 
we  believe  it  will  take  the  Church  by  surprise.  Men  will  be  disposed 
to  ask  what  new  light  has  been  discovered  ?  What  stern  necessity  has 
induced  the  Assembly  to  pronounce  Calvin,  Luther,  and  all  the  men 
of  that  generation,  as  well  as  thousands  who  with  no  other  than  Romish 
baptism  have  since  been  received  into  the  Protestant  Churches,  to  have 
lived  and  died  unbaptized?  The  suddenness  with  which  this  decision 
has  been  made  will  add  not  a  little  to  the  surprise  and  regret  with 
which  it  will  be  received.  The  judgment  has  come  before  the  argu- 
ment. We  do  not  doubt  that  the  brethren  who  urged  the  course 
adopted  by  the  Assembly,  have  examined  the  subject,  but  we  are  very 
sure  the  Church  has  not.  We  question  whether  one  in  twenty  of  our 
ministers  have  ever  given  it  more  than  a  passing  consideration.  Yet 
as  the  Assembly  professes  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Church,  it 
would  seem  proper  that  no  decision  so  important  and  so  deeply  affect- 
ing the  character  of  the  whole  body  in  the  eyes  of  Christendom,  should 
be  pronounced,  until  means  had  been  taken  to  ascertain  the  views  of 
the  Church  generally.  The  Assembly  has  indeed  the  right  to  resolve 
all  questions  of  casuistry,  regularly  presented,  and  to  give  advice  to  the 
lower  courts  when  requested.  We  do  not  question  the  right.  We  only 
venture  to  question  the  wisdom  of  giving  an  answer  suddenly,  in  oppo- 
sition to  all  previous  practice,  and  to  the  principles  of  every  other  pro- 
testant  Church.  The  fact  that  the  answer  is  new,  creates  a  reason  for 
being  slow  to  pronounce  it.  Had  a  judicial  case  been  presented  in- 
volving such  a  question,  the  Assembly  would  have  been  bound  to  give 
judgment  according  to  its  conscience.  But  we  conceive  the  cases  to  be 
rare,  in  which  it  can  be  right  to  take  up  a  question  in  thesi,  and  to 
enunciate  a  dictum  at  variance  with  all  previously  adopted  principles 
and  usage.  We  are  very  sure  the  United  States  court  would  be  very 
slow  to  enunciate,  without  necessity,  a  principle  of  law  in  opposition  to 
all  precedent  in  that  and  all  similar  courts. 

We  shall  very  briefly  and  respectfully  state  the  reasons,  which  con- 
strain us  to  dissent  from  the  decision  that  Romish  baptism  is  invalid. 
We  could  do  this,  to  our  own  satisfaction  at  least,  by  simply  asking, 
What  is  baptism  ?  "  It  is  a  sacrament,  wherein  the  washing  of  water, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  doth  signify 
and  seal  our  engrafting  into  Christ,  and  partaking  of  the  benefits  of 


VALIDITY  OF  ROMISH  BAPTISM.  193 

the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagements  to  be  tlie  Lord's."  There 
are  three  essential  points  included  in  this  definition. 

1st.  Baptism  is  a  washing  with  water.  Hence  a  washing  with  sand, 
wine,  oil,  or  milk  is  not  baptism.  Instances  are  recorded  in  which 
men  baptized  in  the  desert  with  sand,  have  been  re-baptized;  and 
great  surprise  was  expressed  at  Beza's  declaration;  Ego  quovis  alio 
liquore  non  minus  rite,  quam  aqua  baptizarem,  JEjnst.  11.  ad  Tillium. 
Water,  however,  by  common  consent  is  essential  to  the  ordinance, 
because  it  is  commanded,  and  because  it  belongs  to  the  significancy  of 
the  rite. 

2d.  But  not  every  washing  with  water  is  the  Christian  ordinance  of 
baptism,  it  must  be  a  washing  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  Hence 
washing  with  water  by  an  anti-trinitarian,  is  not  baptism.  When  the 
controversy  first  arose  in  the  Church  about  the  baptism  of  heretics, 
there  were  two  extreme  opinions.  Cyprian,  and  those  African  bishops 
who  were  under  his  influence,  took  the  ground  that  the  baptism  of  all 
those  who  separated  from  the  outward  communion  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  whether  for  heresy  or  schism,  was  null  and  void.  In  this  view 
the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor  generally  coincided  ;  a  fact  easily  accounted 
for  as  all  the  heretics  with  whom  they  were  in  conflict  denied  the  very 
essentials  of  the  gospel.  Stephen,  bishop  of  Rome,  went  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  admitting  the  baptism  of  all  kinds  of  heretics  to  be  valid. 
Both  parties  soon  settled  down  upon  middle  ground.  In  the  council 
of  Aries,  A.  D.  314,  when  nearly  two  hundred  bishops  were  present,  it 
was  determined ;  "  If  any  one  return  from  his  heresy  to  the  Church,  let 
the  Catholic  priest  question  him  about  the  creed  ;  and  if  they  perceive 
that  he  was  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  only  the  imposition  of  hands  shall  be  given  him,  that  he  may  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost.  But  if  upon  examination,  he  answers  not  the  Trin- 
ity, (that  is,  that  he  was  not  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,)  let 
him  be  re-baptized."  To  the  same  eflect  was  the  decision  of  the  great 
council  of  Nice,  which  directed  that  the  Novatians  should  be  received 
without  baptism,  but  required  a  repetition  of  the  rite  in  the  case  of  the 
disciples  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  There  was  subsequently  a  dispute 
whether  baptism  by  those  Arians  who  retained  the  orthodox  formula 
was  valid  or  not.  "  The  more  general  and  prevailing  interpre- 
tation of  the  Nicene  canon  was,  that  the  baptism  of  all  heretics  and 
schismatics,  who  did  not  reject  the  Catholic  form  of  baptizing  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  was  to  be  received,  however  they  might  be  hete- 
rodox in  their  faith  and  opinions.  This  was  certainly  the  sense  of  the 
council  of  Laodicea,  of  the  second  general  council  of  Constantinople, 
and  the  second  council  of  Aries  and  Trullo ;  as  also  of  St.  Austin, 
St.  Jerome,  (iennadius,  Ursinus  Afer,  Siricius,  Leo,  Inuocentius,  the 
13 


194  CHURCH  POLITY. 

autlior  under  the  name  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  the  generality  of  the 
ancients."  * 

Protestants  have  not  gone  to  this  length,  as  they  require  a  professed 
faith  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in  order  to  the  validity  of  baptism, 
because  it  is  from  its  nature  an  act  of  worship  of  the  Triune  God. 
With  one  accord,  however,  they  have  acquiesced  in  the  judgment  of 
the  ancient  Church,  that  the  baptism  of  heretics  is  not  void  on  account 
of  heresy,  provided  they  retain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  baptize 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  see  Gerhard's  Loci  Communes,  vol.  9.  L.  21.  c.  4., 
where  he  sustains  the  practice  of  his  Church,  by  quoting  the  words  of 
Anselm:  "  Baptisma  a  quocunque  datum  fuerit,  sive  a  bono  sive  a  malo, 
sive  a  CatlioUco,  sive  ah  haeretico  juxta  morem  ecclesice  in  nomine  Patris, 
Filii  et  Spiritus  sancti,  tantundem  valeV 

The  same  doctrine  as  to  baptism  by  heretics  was  held  by  the  French 
and  Geneva  Churches.  See  Turrettin,  vol.  iii.  p.  442.  "  Some  here- 
tics," he  says,  "  corrupt  the  very  substance  of  baptism,  as  the  ancient 
Arians,  modern  Socinians,  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  others, 
retaining:  the  essentials  of  the  ordinance  and  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  err  as  to  other  doctrines,  as  formerly  the  Novatians  and  Do- 
natists,  and  now  the  Papists  and  Arminians.  The  baptisms  of  the  for- 
mer class  are  to  be  rejected ;  those  of  the  latter  are  retained,  although 
they  err  as  to  inany  doctrines,  and  their  baptisms,  in  circumstantials, 
are  polluted  by  various  ceremonies."  See  also  Pictet,  La  Tlieologie 
Chretienne,  Lib.  xv.  c.  13.  The  Church  of  Holland  adopted  the  same 
view ;  see  Morus,  Commentarius  Perpetuus,  &c.,  vol.  v.  p.  448.  Doeetur 
esse  distinguendam  hceresin ;  a.  abditam  et  p)rofessione  externa  expressam  ; 
b.  retinentem  essentialia  baptismi,  et  evertentem  eadem :  adeo  ut  baptis- 
mus  administratur  in  nomen  Dei  Triunius  veri  agniti  velfiat  luto,  quo  peril 
analogia  inter  signum  et  rem  signatam  aid  non  fiat  in  nomine  Dei  Tri- 
unius, sed  in  coetu  antitrinitario.  In  posteriori  casii  baptismus  repetendus 
censetur,  nonin  priori.  No  one  questions  this  being  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  since  her  practice  on  the  subject  has  been  uniform, 
and  sustained  by  the  highest  judicial  decisions.  It  is,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  Church,  that  baptism  admmistered  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  by  one  professing  faith  in  that  doctrine,  is  not 
void  on  account  of  heresy.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  our  standards  which 
declares  baptism  to  be  a  washing  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  The  ground  of  this  universally  received  view 
of  the  subject  is  obvious.     The  validity  of  baptism  depends  upon  the 

*  See  Bingham's  Scliolastic  History  of  Lay  Baptism,  c.  I.  in  his  Origines  Ecde- 
eiae,  and  Neander's  History,  vol.  I.  pp.  565—577,  German  edition. 


VALIDITY  OF  KOMISH  BAPTISM.  195 

appointment  of  God,  and  not  upon  the  character  or  faith  of  the  admin- 
istrator ;  and  therefore,  any  baptism  which  is  administered  according 
to  His  appointment,  the  Church  has  felt  constrained  to  admit  to  be 
baptism. 

3.  There  is,  however,  a  third  particular  included  in  this  definition  of 
baptism ;  it  must  be  with  the  design  "  to  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting 
into  Christ,  and  partaking  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and 
our  engagements  to  be  the  Lord's."  There  are  two  things  includ- 
ed in  this  statement ;  participation  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant,  and 
the  avowal  of  our  purpose  to  be  the  Lord's.  No  Avashing  with  water, 
even  if  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  is  Christian  baptism,  unless  admin- 
istered with  the  ostensible  design  of  signifying,  sealing  and  apj)lying 
the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  This  is  what  the  ancient  Church 
meant  by  "  intention  "  as  essential  to  this  ordinance ;  and  which  the 
papists  have  characteristically  perverted.  By  intention,  they  mean 
the  secret  purpose  of  the  priest ;  against  which  view  of  the  doctrine,  all 
Protestants  protested,  as  one  of  the  devices  of  the  man  of  sin,  to  make 
the  people  dependent  on  the  priesthood.  The  ancient  and  true  doc- 
trine is  that  intention  refers  to  the  ostensible  and  professed  design  of 
the  administration.  No  washing  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trini- 
ty, therefore,  is  baptism,  if  done  in  sport,  or  mockery,  or  with  the  pro- 
fessed design  of  healing  the  sick,  or  raising  the  dead.  It  must  be  with 
the  professed,  ostensible  intention  of  complying  with  the  command  of 
Christ,  and  of  doing  what  he  requires  to  be  done,  by  those  who  accept 
the  covenant  of  grace.  From  this  it  follows,  that  no  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  a  Jew,  a  pagan,  a  child,  or  an  idiot,  can  be  valid,  because  in 
all  such  cases,  the  requisite  design  must  be  absent.  A  Jew  cannot,  be- 
ing such,  join  in  an  act  of  Christian  worship,  for  he  would  thereby 
cease  to  be  a  Jew.  As  baptism  includes  the  invocation  of  the  Trinity, 
as  a  religious  act,  no  man  who  does  not  profess  to  believe  in  the  Trini- 
ty, can  profess  to  join  in  such  act. 

The  doctrine  of  our  standards,  therefore,  is  the  precise  doctrine  of 
the  ancient  Church,  viz.,  that  there  are  three  things  essential  to  baptism; 
the  matter,  form,  and  intention.  The  matter,  is  the  washing  with  wa- 
ter ;  the  form,  washing  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity ;  the  intention,  not 
the  popish  notion  of  the  secret  purpose  of  the  priest,  but  the  professed 
ostensible  design  of  the  act.  When  these  three  things  are  found,  there, 
according  to  our  standards,  and  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Church,  is 
baptism. 

Such  being  the  formal  and  authoritative  definition  of  the  rite,  in 
order  to  determine  in  any  given  case,  whether  any  particular  baptism 
is  valid,  all  we  have  to  do  is,  to  ask  whether  it  has  these  essential  cha- 
racteristics.    Is  it  a  washing  with  water?     Is  it  administered  in  the 


196  CHURCH  POLITY. 

name  of  the  Trinity?  Is  the  professed  design  of  the  rite  to  signify, 
seal  and  apjDly  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant?  If  so,  then,  by  our 
standards,  it  is  baptism.  To  determine  the  question  before  us,  we 
must,  therefore,  ascertain  whether, 

1st.  Romish  baptism  is  a  washing  with  water  ?  The  Romish  cate- 
chism defines  baptism  to  be  "  The  sacrament  of  regeneration  by  water 
with  the  word."  In  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  the  matter  of 
baptism?  tlie  Romish  theologians  answer;  Est  omnis  et  sola  aqua  natu- 
ralis,  seu  elementaris,  ^'any  and  only  natural  water."  One  of  their 
favourite  dicta  is  the  saying  of  Augustine:  Quid  est  Baptismus?  Lava- 
ertmi  aquce  in  verbo:  tolle  aquam,non  est  baptismus ;  tolle  verbum,  non 
est  baptismus.  Water,  therefore  is,  according  to  the  Romish  Church, 
essential  to  baptism,  and  as  far  as  "  the  matter  "  is  concerned,  nothing 
else  is.  The  water  may  be  marine,  or  rain,  or  river,  or  from  a  spring, 
or  mineral ;  it  may  be  clear  or  turbid,  warm  or  cold,  but  it  must  be 
water.  Baptism  with  mud,  wine,  milk,  oil,  saliva,  tears,  &c.,  the  Ro- 
mish theologians  pronounce  invalid.*  Their  doctrine  on  this  point  is 
identical  with  our  own. 

We  were  therefore  greatly  surprised  to  see  that  it  was  stated  on  the 
floor  of  the  Assembly  that  Romanists  did  not  baptize  with  water,  but 
with  water  mixed  with  oil.  Suppose  this  to  be  true,  water  with  oil 
thrown  on  it  is  still  water.  How  many  things  are  mixed  with  the 
wine  we  use  at  the  Lord's  supper?  Is  wine  adulterated  with  water  no 
longer  wine?  Did  not  our  Saviour  call  the  paschal  cup  wine,  though 
mixed  with  water?  This  objection  is  trivial.  So  long  as  the  element 
used  is  water,  and  so  long  as  the  siguificancy  of  the  rite  is  made  to 
consist  in  washing  with  water,  the  matter  of  the  ordinance  is  retained. 
But,  as  far  as  we  know,  the  objection  is  unfounded  in  fact.  There  are 
various  ceremonies  which  precede,  attend  and  follow  the  rite  as  admin- 
istered in  the  Romish  Church ;  among  which  is  Chrism,  or  anointing 
with  oil ;  but  these  ceremonies  are  not  represented  as  entering  into  the 
nature  of  the  ordinance,  or  making  any  part  of  it.f  They  are  treated 
of  and  explained  separately.  First,  Baptism  is  declared  to  be  a  wash- 
ing with  water ;  and  then  the  ceremonies  accompanying  this  washing 

*  In  answer  to  the  question,  what  kind  of  water  may  be  used  in  Baptism, 

"  R.  Talis  est  aqua  marina,  pluvialis,  fontana,  Jluvialis,  mineralis;  sive  turbida  sit  sive 
clara,  frigida  vel  calida  sive  benedicta  sive  non.  .  .  .  E  contra  invalidus  est  Baptis- 
mus coUatus  in  Into,  vino,  puingid  cerevisia,  lacte,  oleo,  saliva,  sudore,  lacrymis,"  &c.— 
Dens'  Theology ;  torn.  v.  p.  158. 

t  The  preceding  ceremonies  are,  exoreismus,  signum  crucis,  salis  gustus,  et  linitio 
salivce;  Concomitantes,  abrenunciatio,  unctio  baptizandi  oleo  catechumenorum,  catechis- 
mus,  et  inquisitio  voluntatis  suscipiendi  Baplismum ;  Subsequentes,  unctio  baptizati  per 
chrisma  vestis  candidce  donatio,  et  cerei  ardentis  traditio.    Dens.  vol.  v.  p.  205. 


VALIDITY  OF  KOMISH  BAPTISM.  197 

are  stated  and  explained.  In  treating  of  the  "matter  of  baptism,"  not 
one  word  is  said  of  oil  or  anything  else,  but  water  vera  et  naturalis  is 
declared  to  be  necessary  and  sufficient.  As  far  therefore  as  the  first 
point  is  concerned,  Romish  baptism  is  baptism.  It  is  a  washing  with 
water. 

2.  Is  it  then  correct  as  to  the  form  ?  Is  it  administered  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity  ?  The  form  prescribed  by  the  council  of  Trent,  is  in 
these  words,  "  JEgo  te  hcq^tizo  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti." 
The  form  therefore  is  identical  with  our  own.  It  is  not  in  words, 
merely,  that  this  form  is  scriptural,  the  avowed  sense  in  which  they  are 
used  is  correct.  There  is  not  a  Church  on  earth  which  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  more  accurately,  thoroughly  or  minutely,  according 
to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  than  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  personal  and  official  relations  of  the  adorable 
Trinity,  are  also  preserved.  The  Father  is  represented  as  the  author 
of  the  new  covenant,  the  Son  as  redeemer,  the  Spirit  as  sanctifier. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  in  any 
Church,  if  Romish  baptism  is  not. 

3.  Then  as  to  the  third  essential  part  of  the  ordinance,  the  design,  in 
this  also  their  baptism  agrees  with  that  of  Protestants.  According  to 
our  standards  the  design  of  the  Sacrament  is  to  signify,  seal  and  apply 
to  believers  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant.  This  is  the  precise  doc- 
trine of  the  Romanists,  so  far  as  this.  1.  They  say  it  is  essential  to  a 
sacrament  that  it  should  be  a  sensible  sign  of  spiritual  blessings.  2. 
That  it  should  be  instituted  by  Christ.  3.  That  it  should  have  a  prom- 
ise of  grace.*  Hence  the  sacraments  signify,  seal,  and  apply  the  bene- 
fits of  redemption.  According  to  both  parties,  by  baptism  we  are  for- 
mally constituted  members  of  the  visible  Church,  and  partakers  of  its 
benefits.  The  great  difference  relates  not  to  the  design  of  the  ordinance, 
but  to  the  mode  and  certainty  with  which  that  design  is  accomplished, 
and  the  conditions  attached  to  it.  In  other  words,  the  difference  re- 
lates to  the  efficacy,  and  not  to  the  design  of  the  ordinance.  The  de- 
sign on  either  side  is  stated  to  be  to  initiate  into  the  visible  Church  and 
secure  its  blessings.  But  how  and  to  what  extent,  and  under  what  con- 
ditions these  blessings  are  secured  by  baptism,  there  is  a  great  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  As  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  there  are  these 
three  genei'al  views.  First,  that  of  the  Zuinglians  who  make  them  mere 
naked  signs.  Secondly,  that  of  those  who  teach  that  they  certainly 
convey  to  all  infants  the  blessings  signified,  and  to  adults  if  rightly  dis- 
posed ;  and  third,  the  middle  doctrine  maintained  by  our  Church,  and 
the   Reformed  generally.      Speaking  of  baptism,  our  Confession  of 

*  Cardinal  Tqnnere,  InsiitvMones  Theologicce,  vol.  III.  p.  276. 


198  CHUECH  POLITY. 

Faith  says  :  "  By  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the  grace  promised  is 
not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  (/.  e.  conveyed)  an,d  conferred  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants)  as  that  grace 
belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  council  of  God's  own  will,  and  in  his 
own  appointed  time."  According  to  our  doctrine  then,  baptism  does 
not  uniformly  convey  the  benefits  which  it  signifies,  and  secondly  its 
efficacy  is  not  limited  to  the  time  of  its  administration.*  With  regard 
to  adults,  the  difference  between  us  and  Romanists  is  much  less.  Ac- 
cording to  our  standards  the  sacraments  are  made  effectual  as  means  of 
grace  to  believers,  or  "  to  w^orthy  receivers  ;"  and  Romanists  say,  that 
in  adults  to  the  profitable  use  of  baptism,  there  are  requisite,  the  influ- 
ence of  divine  grace,  the  act  of  faith,  of  hoj)e,  of  love,  and  of  penitence 
or  contrition.f 

The  error  of  the  Romanists  concerning  the  absolute  necessity  and 
uniform  efficacy  (in  the  case  of  infants)  of  baptism,  is  very  great,  but 
it  cannot  invalidate  the  nature  of  the  ordinance.  It  is  out  of  all  rea- 
son to  say  that  the  rite  is  valid,  if  it  is  supposed  to  be  effectual  to 
some  and  at  an  indefinite  time,  and  invalid,  if  supposed  to  be  always 
effectual  when  there  is  no  opposition.  Besides,  if  baptism  is  null  and 
void  when  administered  by  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  baptism  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  strict  Lutheran  Churches,  and  in  all  the  Churches  of  the 
East?  On  this  plan,  we  shall  have  to  unchurch  almost  the  whole 
Christian  world ;  and  Presbyterians,  instead  of  being  the  most  catholic 
of  Churches,  admitting  the  being  of  a  Church,  wherever  we  see  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  would  become  one  of  the  narrowest  and  most  bigot- 

*  In  the  old  Scots  Confession  it  ia  said,  "  And  tlius  we  utterlie  damne  the  vanities 
of  they  that  affirm  Sacramentes  to  be  nothing  ellis  bot  naked  and  baire  eignes. 
No,  wee  assuredlie  beleeve,  that  be  Baptisme  we  ar  ingrafted  into  Christ  Jesus, 
to  be  made  partakers  of  his  justice,  be  quhilk  our  sinnes  ar  covered  and  remitted." 
In  the  Book  of  Common  Order,  "  approved  by  that  famous  man  John  Calvin,  and 
received  and  used  by  the  Reformed  Kirk  of  Scotland,"  this  idea  is  expressed  with 
some  limitation.  ''The  venomous  dregs"  of  sin,  it  is  said,  remain  in  the  flesh, 
"yet  by  the  merites  of  his  death  (they)  are  not  imputed  to  us,  because  the  justice 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  made  ours  by  Baptisme;  not  that  we  think  any  such  virtue  or 
power  to  be  included  in  the  visible  water,  or  outward  action,  for  many  have  been 
baptized,  and  yet  were  never  inwardly  purged ;  but  our  Saviour  Christ,  who  com- 
manded baptism  to  be  administered,  will,  by  the  power  of  the  Holie  Spirit,  effect- 
uallie  worke  in  the  hearts  of  his  elect,  in  time  convenient,  all  that  is  meant  and 
signified  by  the  same." 

f  QucBnam  (dispositio)  requiritur  ad  fruduosam  hujus  Sacramenti  susceptionem  f 
M.  Ulam  late  describit  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  6.  c.  6.  ut  videre  est:  Siunmatim  dicimus 
ex  CO  rcquiri  motum  divince  gratice,  actum  fidci,  spei  et  amoris  ac  pcenitentia  sen  eon- 
iritionis.     Dens.  vol.  v.  p.  187. 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  199 

ed  of  sects.  Indeed  we  cannot  but  regard  this  sudden  denunciation  of 
Komish  baptism,  as  a  momentary  outbreak  of  the  spirit  of  Popery ;  a 
disposition  to  contract  the  limits  of  the  Church,  and  to  make  that  es- 
sential to  its  being  and  sacraments,  -which  God  has  never  declared  to 
be  necessary. 

We  have  now  shown  that  Komish  baptism  iiilfills  all  the  conditions 
of  valid  baptism,  as  given  in  our  standards.  It  is  a  washing  with 
water  in  tha  name  of  the  Trinity,  with  the  ostensible  and  professed 
design  of  making  the  recipient  a  member  of  the  visible  Church,  and  a 
partaker  of  its  benefits.  On  what  grounds  then  is  it  declared  to  be 
null  and  void  ?  The  grounds  are  two.  First,  it  is  not  administered 
by  ordained  ministers  of  Christ ;  second,  the  Church  of  Rome  is  not  a 
true  Church,  and  therefore  its  ordinances  are  not  Christian  sacraments. 
The  former  of  these  arguments  stands  thus :  No  baptism  is  valid  unless 
administered  by  a  duly  ordained  minister  of  Christ.  Romish  priests 
are  not  such  ministers.     Therefore  Romish  baptism  is  invalid. 

It  may  be  proper,  before  considering  this  argument,  to  ascertain  the 
precise  point  to  be  proved,  or  what  is  meant  by  the  words  valid  and 
invalid  in  this  connection.  They  seem  often  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of 
regular  and  irregular.  Christ  has  appointed  a  certain  class  of  men  to 
preach  the  gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments.  For  any  one  not  be- 
longing to  this  class,  to  perform  either  service,  is  irregular,  and  in  that 
sense  invalid.  Valid,  however,  properly  means  available,  (able  to 
effect).  A  thing  is  valid  when  it  avails  to  its  appropriate  end.  Thus 
a  deed  is  valid  which  avails  to  convey  a  title  to  property ;  a  marriage 
is  valid,  which  avails  to  constitute  the  conjugal  relation.  Sometimes 
the  validity  of  a  thing  depends  upon  its  regularity  ;  as  a  deed  if  not 
regular,  if  not  made  according  to  law,  does  not  avail  for  the  end  for 
which  it  was  made.  Very  often,  however,  the  validity  of  a  thing  does 
not  depend  upon  the  rules  made  to  regulate  the  mode  of  doing  it. 
Many  marriages  are  valid,  which  violate  the  rules  of  decorum,  order, 
and  even  civil  society.  When  Romish  baptism  is  pronounced  invalid, 
it  is  not  declared  simply  irregular,  in  the  sense  in  which  lay-preaching 
is  unauthorized ;  but  it  is  said  not  to  avail  to  the  end  for  which  baptism 
was  instituted ;  it  does  not  avail  to  make  the  recipient  a  professing 
Christian.  Though  a  sincere  believer  should  be  baptized  by  a  Roman- 
ist, such  baptism  would  not  signify  or  seal  to  him  the  benefits  of  the 
new  covenant,  nor  express  his  purpose  to  obey  Christ.  Such  is  the 
declaration.  The  first  argument  in  support  of  this  position  is  founded 
on  the  assumption  that  no  baptism  is  valid,  in  the  sense  just  explained, 
unless  administered  by  a  duly  ordained  minister  of  Christ.  We  do 
not  mean  to  contest  this  proposition,  and  must  not  be  understood  as  de- 
nying it,  but  we  say  its  truth  ought  to  have  been  proved  and  not  taken 


200  CHURCH  POLITY. 

for  granted.  Our  standards  do  not  affirm  it.  They  say  indeed  that 
"  neither  sacrament  may  be  dispensed  by  any,  but  by  a  minister  of  the 
word  lawfully  ordained."  Con.  of  Faith,  c.  27,  §  4.  But  they  say  the 
same  thing  of  preaching.  Larger  Cat.  ques.  158.  Both  are  irregular ; 
but  irregular  and  invalid  are  very  different  things.  Again,  this  j)rop- 
osition  is  not  contained  in  the  definition  of  baj^tism.  That  ordinance 
is  declared  to  be  a  washing  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  to 
signify  our  ingrafting  into  Christ.  To  say,  it  is  a  washing  with  water, 
by  a  minister  duly  ordained,  in  the  name,  &c.,  is  to  give  a  new  definition, 
essentially  different  from  the  old  one.  The  insertion  of  this  clause  may 
be  authorized,  but  the  authority  ought  to  be  given.  Again,  the  princi- 
ple in  question,  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  nature  and  design  of  bap- 
tism. Baptism  was  instituted  to  constitute  or  declare  the  recipient  a 
disciple  of  Christ,  and  to  signify  and  seal  to  him  the  benefits  of  the 
new  covenant.  It  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this  statement, 
that  it  does  not  avail  to  this  end,  unless  administered  by  an  ordained 
man.  If  ordination  did,  as  Puseyites  say,  convey  grace  and  impart  su- 
pernatural power,  it  would  be  more  apparent,  why  baptism  by  uncon- 
secrated  hands  should  fail  to  have  any  efficacy.  Puseyites,  therefore, 
are  very  consistently  anabaptists,  both  here  and  in  England.  Again, 
the  principle  assumed  is  contrary  to  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  great 
body  of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages.  The  common  doctrine  of  the 
Church  has  been,  that  baptism  and  teaching  belong  properly  to  minis- 
ters of  the  word ;  in  cases  of  necessity,  however,  baptism  by  unordained 
persons,  was  regarded  as  not  only  valid,  but  proper ;  in  all  other  cases, 
as  irregular  and  censurable,  but  still  as  baptism  and  not  to  be  repeated. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  this  doctrine  was  retained  by  the  whole 
Lutheran  Church,  and  by  the  Church  of  England.  Calvin,  Beza,  the 
French  Church,  and  the  Church  of  Holland  rejected  it,  and  so  we  pre- 
sume did  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Though,  therefore,  the  Reformed  or 
Calviuistic  Churches  have  generally  maintained  the  position  assumed  by 
the  Assembly,  as  to  the  invalidity  of  lay-baptism,  yet,  as  it  is  not  as- 
serted in  our  book,  and  has  been  denied  by  so  great  a  majority  of  Chris- 
tians, it  ought  not  to  be  made  the  ground  of  an  argument,  without  some 
exhibition  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  This  is  a  subject  to  which 
we  presume  less  attention  has  been  paid  in  our  Church,  than  it  merits. 
We  repeat  the  remark,  that  we  are  not  to  be  understood  as  denying  that 
baptism  must  be  administered  by  an  ordained  man,  in  order  to  its  va- 
lidity ;  we  are  willing  to  concede  that  point  in  the  argument,  the  conclu- 
sion however  utterly  fails,  unless  the  minor  proposition  above  stated  can 
be  proved.  Admitting  that  baptism  must  be  administered  by  ordained 
ministers  of  Christ,  it  must  be  proved  that  Romish  priests  are  not  such 
ministers,  before  it  can  be  shown  that  their  baptisms  are  invalid. 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  201 

Let  us  inquire  then  what  is  an  ordained  minister,  and  then  see 
whether  the  Romish  j)riests  come  within  the  definition. 

According  to  the  common  doctrine  of  Protestants,  an  ordained  min- 
ister is  a  man  appointed  to  perform  the  sacred  functions  of  teaching 
and  administering  the  sacraments  in  any  community  professing  Chris- 
tianity. There  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  way  of  doing  this ;  there  is  a 
way  agreeable  to  scriptural  precedent,  and  there  are  many  ways  which 
have  no  such  sanction.  Still  whether  it  be  done  by  a  prelate,  a  pres- 
bytery, by  the  people,  or  by  the  magistrate  with  the  consent  of  the 
people,  if  a  man  is  recognised  by  a  Christian  community  as  a  minister, 
he  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  due  authority  to  act  as  such.  It  does 
not  follow  from  this  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  him  into  ministerial 
communion,  or  to  allow  him  to  act  as  a  minister  in  our  churches. 
That  depends  upon  his  having  the  qualifications  which  we  deem  requi- 
site for  the  sacred  office.  Should  a  prelate  or  presbytery  ordain  an 
ignorant  or  heretical  man,  we  should  be  under  no  obligation  to  receive 
him  to  the  sacred  ofiice  among  ourselves.  And  if  the  j^eople  should 
elect  a  man  to  that  office,  we  are  not  bound  to  receive  him  on  the 
ground  of  that  election,  since  we  believe  that  ordination  by  the  presby- 
tery ought  to  be  required.  Since,  however,  Christ  has  not  made  the 
ministry  essential  to  the  Church,  much  less  any  particular  method  of 
inducting  men  into  that  office,  we  have  no  right  to  say  that  a  body  of 
Christians  are  no  Church,  and  have  no  valid  sacraments,  because  they 
differ  from  us  as  to  the  mode  of  ordaining  ministers.  It  is  one  of  the 
Popish  principles  which  have  slid  into  the  minds  of  some  Protestants, 
and  which  was  openly  avowed  upon  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  the 
ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church.  Such  a  sentiment  is  directly  op- 
posed to  our  standards,  and  to  the  word  of  God.  According  to  the 
Scriptures,  a  church  is  a  congregation  of  believers,  or  of  those  who 
profess  to  be  believers;  according  to  the  hierarchical  system,  it  is  "a 
congregation  of  believers  subject  to  lawful  pastors."  An  intrusive  ele- 
ment, which  is  the  germ  of  the  whole  hierarchical  system,  is  thus  intro- 
duced into  the  idea  of  the  Church,  which  changes  and  vitiates  the 
whole  thing.  Bellarmin  has  the  credit  of  being  the  first  writer  who 
thus  corrupted  the  definition  of  the  Church.  The  being  of  a  Church 
does  not  depend  upon  the  ministry,  nor  the  being  of  the  ministry  on 
the  rite  of  ordination.  Any  man  is  a  minister  in  the  sense  of  the  pro- 
position under  consideration,  who  is  recognised  as  such  by  a  Christian 
community. 

The  soundness  of  this  principle  appears,  1.  From  the  consideration 
already  referred  to,  that  we  have  no  authority  in  this  matter  to  go  be- 
yond the  Scriptures.  If  Christ  or  his  apostles  had  said  that  no  man 
should  be  recognised  as  a  minister,  nor  his  official  acts  accounted  valid, 


202  CHUECH  POLITY. 

unless  ordained  in  a  specified  manner,  we  should  be  bound  by  such 
rule.  But  the  Scriptures  contain  no  such  rule,  and  we  have  no  right 
to  make  it.  All  that  the  Bible  does,  is  to  make  known  the  fact,  that 
ministers  were  examined  and  authenticated  as  teachers  by  other  teach- 
ers, but  that  it  must  be  so,  they  nowhere  assert. 

2.  This  doctrine  flows  from  what  is  one  of  the  distinguishing  princi- 
ples of  the  evangelical,  as  opposed  to  the  hierarchical  system,  viz. :  that 
all  Church  power  belongs  originally  to  the  Church  as  such.  The  ori- 
ginal commission,  the  promises  and  prerogatives  were  given,  not  to  the 
Church  officers  as  their  peculium,  but  to  the  people ;  and  they  may  ex- 
ercise those  prerogatives  not  regularly,  not  orderly,  or  wisely,  it  may 
be,  but  still  validly  under  any  form  they  see  fit.  They  ought,  indeed, 
to  follow  scriptural  examples,  as  to  the  mode  of  making  ministers,  but 
still  as  the  power  to  make  them  was  involved  in  the  original  commis- 
sion granted  to  the  Church,  we  cannot  deny  it. 

3.  To  reject  the  principle  in  question  is  to  involve  ourselves  in  all 
the  difficulties,  absurdities  and  assumptions  of  the  doctrine  of  apostol- 
ical succession.  Every  Church  would  have  to  prove  that  its  ministry 
had  been  regularly  ordained  in  a  specific  manner  from  the  apostles  to 
the  present  time.  This,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  can  no  more  be 
done,  than  a  man  can  prove  that  all  his  ancestors  were  regularly  mar- 
ried from  the  time  of  Adam.  It  may  be  assumed,  but  it  cannot  by 
possibility  be  proved.  And  since  there  is  in  Scripture  no  promise  of 
any  such  unbroken  succession  of  ordinations,  to  assume  it,  is  gratui- 
tous ;  and  to  make  such  assumption  the  basis  of  ecclesiastical  claims,  or 
of  religious  hopes,  is  absurd  and  ruinous. 

4.  We  all  act  upon  this  principle.  What  Presbyterian  feels  called 
upon  to  trace  up  historically  to  the  apostles,  the  ecclesiastical  genealogy 
of  every  minister  whose  act  he  is  called  upon  to  recognize  ?  Or  who 
ever  thinks  of  inquiring  whether  every  candidate  for  the  admission  to 
the  Lord's  supper,  if  from  among  the  Methodists  or  Baptists,  was  bap- 
tized by  a  man  ordained  in  a  particular  way?  It  is  always  considered 
enough  if  the  applicant  was  baptized  by  one  having  public  authority  in 
the  body  whence  he  came,  to  administer  the  sacraments. 

5.  All  Protestant  Churches  have  recognised  the  same  principle. 
The  language  of  the  twenty-third  Article  of  the  Church  of  England 
may  be  taken  as  expressing  the  general  sense  of  the  age  of  the  Refor- 
mation on  this  subject.  That  article  says*:  "Those  ought  to  be  judged 
lawfully  called  and  sent,  who  are  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by 
men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them,  in  the  congregation, 
to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  This  asserts  the 
necessity  of  a  call,  without  prescribing  any  particular  mode  as  essential 
to  its  validity.     Accordingly,  the  validity  of  the  orders  which  many  of 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  203 

the  reformers  received  in  the  Romish  Church,  was  universally  ad- 
mitted ;  while  at  the  same  time,  no  objection  was  made  to  the  vocation 
of  those  who  had  received  nothing  more  than  election  by  the  people.  It 
was  held,  indeed,  that  under  ordinary  circumstances,  no  one  should  as- 
sume the  sacred  office  to  himself,  and  that  besides  election  by  the  peo- 
ple, there  should,  in  a  regular  state  of  the  Church,  be  an  examination 
and  imposition  of  hands  by  the  presbytery.  But  it  was  denied  that 
these  things  were  essential. 

Do,  then,  the  Romish  priests  come  within  this  wide  definition  of  or- 
dained ministers  ?  Are  they  appointed  by  public  authority  to  teach 
the  Christian  religion,  and  to  administer  its  ordinances  ?  The  question 
is  not  whether  they  are  good  men,  or  whether  they  do  not  assume  sacer- 
dotal and  other  powers  to  which  they  have  no  claim?  or  whether  they 
are  correct  in  doctrine  ?  but  simply,  whether  in  a  body  professing  to 
hold  saving  doctrine,  they  are  appointed  and  recognized  as  presbyters  ? 
If  so,  then  they  are  ministers  within  the  sense  of  the  received  Protes- 
tant definition  of  the  term.*  The  only  ground  on  which  this  can  be 
denied  is,  that  they  do  not  in  any  sense  profess  the  Christian  religion 
any  more  than  Jews  or  Pagans,  and  therefore  this  argument,  though 
presented  first  and  separately  in  the  minute  adopted  by  Assembly,  really 
resolves  itself  in  the  second  presented  in  that  document,  viz :  That  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  in  no  sense  a  Christian  Church.  Without  antici- 
pating that  point,  however,  we  maintain  that  as  the  Romish  priests  are 
appointed  and  recognized  as  presbyters  in  a  community  professing  to 
believe  the  Scriptures,  the  early  creeds,  and  the  decisions  of  the  first 
four  general  councilsj'^hey  are  ordained  ministers  in  the  sense  above 
stated ;  and  consequently  baptism  administered  by  them  is  valid.  It 
has  accordingly  been  received  as  valid  by  all  Protestant  Churches  from 
the  Reformation  to  the  present  day. 

Calvin,  in  his  Institutes,  Lib.  iv.  c.  15  and  16,  after  saying  that  bap- 
tism does  not  owe  its  value  to  the  character  of  the  administrator,  adds : 
"  By  this  consideration,  the  error  of  the  Donatists  is  efiectually  refuted, 
who  made  the  force  and  value  of  the  sacrament  commensurate  with  the 
worth  of  the  minister.  Such  are  our  modern  Katabaptists,  who  stren- 
uously deny  that  we  were  properly  baptized,  because  we  received  the 
rite  from  impious  idolaters  in  the  papacy ;  and  they  are  therefore  fero- 
cious for  re-baptism.    We  shall,  however,  be  suflSciently  guarded  against 

*  This  is  the  ground  on  which  the  Eeformed  Churches  defended  the  validity  of 
the  orders  received  from  the  Church  of  Eome.  "  Talis  autem  est,"  says  Turrettin, 
*^episcoporum  et  presbyterorum  vocatio  in  ecdesia  Momana,  quae  quoad  institutionem 
Dei  bonafuit,  sed  quoad  abusum  hominum  mala  facta  est.  TJnde  resecatio  errorum  et 
corruptdarum  ah  hominibus  invectarum,  non  potuit  esse  vocationis  abrogatio,  sed  correctio 
et  restitutio." — Vol.  iii.  p.  265. 


204  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

their  nonsense,  if  we  remember  we  were  baptized  not  in  the  name  of 
any  man,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  therefore  baptism  is  not  of  man,  but  of  God,  no  matter  by 
whom  it  was  administered." 

The  first  canon  of  the  chapter  on  baptism,  in  the  Book  of  Discipline 
of  the  French  Church,  declares,  "  Baptism  administered  by  an  unor- 
dained  person  is  wholly  void  and  null ;"  yet  the  twenty-eighth  article 
of  their  Confession  of  Faith  declares  Eomish  baptism  to  be  valid.  In 
the  National  Synod  of  1563,  John  Calvin  presented,  in  the  name  of  the 
pastors  and  professors  at  Geneva,  a  letter  in  reply  to  reasons  pronounc- 
ed by  them  "very  feeble  and  impertinent,"  in  behalf  of  lay-bajDtism, 
one  of  which  was  derived  from  the  assumption  that  Romish  priests  were 
not  true  ministers,  and  yet  their  baptisms  are  valid.  To  this  the  re- 
ply made  was :  "  Popish  baptism  is  grounded  upon  the  institution  of 
Christ ;  because  the  priests  as  perverse  as  they  are,  and  utterly  corrupt, 
are  yet  the  ordinary  ministers  of  that  Church  in  which  they  so  tyrannically 
demean  themselves."*  To  this  view  the  French  Church  steadily  ad- 
jiered  long  after  the  council  of  Trent,  whose  decisions  were  assumed  by 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly,  to  have  wrought  such  a  change 
in  the  character  of  Romanism.  The  illustration  used  by  Calvin,  de- 
rived from  the  fact  that  those  circumcised  by  apostate  priests  under  the 
old  dispensation,  were  never  recircumcised,  or  treated  as  not  having 
received  that  rite  by  the  inspired  prophets,  we  find  repeated  by  all  sub- 
sequent writers. 

The  Church  of  Holland  agreed  with  the  French  Church  in  regard- 
ing the  Romish  priests  as  authorized  to  administer  baptism.f  Such, 
too,  has  been  the  constant  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,;};  and  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Indeed,  we  know  of  no  Church  that  has  ever 
taken  different  ground.  The  Assembly,  therefore,  has  taken  a  position 
on  this  subject  in  opposition  to  the  principles  of  the  whole  Protestant 

*  Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  i.  p.  48. 

f  Moras,  torn.  v.  p.  449.    Hlnc  passim  judicant  Nostri  rehaptizandos  esse  qui  ad 

nos  transeunt  ante  in  coetu  Socinianorum  antiirinitario  baptizati De 

baptizatis  in  ecclesia  Romana  hodierna  mitius  judicium  Nostri  ferre  aolent,  ob  re- 
teniam  illic  cum  eleniento  visibili  aquce  baptismatis,  fidem  Trinitatis  et  administra- 
tionem  baptismi  in  Dei  triunius  nomen.  He  quotes  the  acts  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  which  forbid  Romish  baptism  to  be  repeated  where  "  the  form  and  sub- 
stance" of  the  rite  have  been  retained.  Doubts,  it  seems,  were  entertained  as  to 
baptisms  performed  by  vagrant  priests,  as  a  question  relating  to  that  point  was 
presented  to  tlie  French  Synod  of  1581,  who  replied :  "  Since  authority  to  baptize 
belongs  to  them  according  to  the  order  of  the  Romish  Church,  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  them  is  not  to  be  repeated ;  but  baptism  by  monks,  to  whom  no  such  au- 
thority belongs,  is  void." 
X  Gerhard,  vol.  x.  p.  93. 


VALIDITY  OF  ROMISH  BAPTISM.  205 

world.  A  fact  wliich  of  itself  creates  a  presumption  almost  over- 
whelming against  their  doctrine. 

The  second  great  argument  in  favor  of  the  decision  of  the  Assembly, 
which  indeed  includes  and  supercedes  the  one  just  considered,  is :  The 
Church  of  Rome  is  not  a  true  Church  of  Christ,  and  therefore  its 
sacraments  are  not  Christian  ordinances.  This  is  a  very  plausible 
argument,  and  has  the  advantage  of  being  short  and  syllogistic.  To  its 
influence  we  doubt  not  is  principally  to  be  referred  the  decision  in  ques- 
tion. To  us,  however,  it  appears  to  be  only  another  of  the  innumerable 
instances  of  fallacy  and  false  reasoning  founded  upon  the  ambiguity  of 
the  word  Church.  We  know  of  no  subject  in  theology  on  which  it  is  more 
difficult  to  attain  and  preserve  distinctness  of  thought,  and  precision  of 
language,  than  this.  The  word  Church  has  meanings  so  allied  and  yet 
so  different,  so  well  authorized  and  yet  so  indefinite,  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  avoid  using  the  term  in  one  sense  in  the  premises  of  an 
argument,  and  another  in  the  conclusion.  Almost  every  treatise  on 
the  Church  which  it  has  been  our  lot  to  rea,d,  has  been  more  or  less  a 
saying  and  unsaying,  affirming  and  denying  the  same  things  of  the 
same  subject.  This  is  the  fault  not  so  much  of  the  writers  as  of  the 
vagueness  of  the  terms.  You  may,  with  equal  truth,  affirm  or  deny 
that  a  given  body  is  a  Church ;  you  may  say  that  the  Church  is  a  con- 
gregation of  saints,  and  yet  composed,  in  great  part,  of  sinners ;  that 
it  is  infallible  as  to  matters  of  faith,  and  yet  may  fatally  apostatize ; 
that  all  its  members  shall  be  saved,  and  yet  that  many  of  them  will  be 
lost.  The  whole  system  of  Popery  and  Puseyism  owes  its  logical  pow- 
ers to  an  adroit  management  of  this  word.  To  the  Church  are  pro- 
mised in  the  Scriptures  the  continued  presence  of  Christ,  and  influ- 
ence of  his  Spirit,  by  which  it  is  certainly  guided  into  the  knowledge 
of  saving  truth,  preserved  from  fatal  errors,  and  effectually  prepared 
for  heaven.  But,  according  to  our  standards,  the  Church  consists  of 
the  professors  of  the  true  religion ;  therefore,  to  professors  of  true  re- 
ligion is  promised  this  continued  presence  of  Christ  and  the  saving 
guidance  of  his  Spirit.  This  argument  is  just  as  good  as  that  used  by 
the  Assembly  ;  and  yet,  unless  it  is  false,  the  whole  doctrinal  system 
of  Romanism  is  true.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  extreme  caution  is 
necessary  in  constructing  any  argument,  the  validity  of  which  depends 
on  the  idea  attached  to  the  word  Church. 

The  question  whether  the  Church  of  Rome  is  a  true  Cliurch  ?  can- 
not be  intelligently  answered  without  previously  fixing  the  meaning 
of  the  term.  The  word  ixxXrjaia  in  its  application  to  Christians,  is  in 
the  New  Testament  a  collective  term  for  xXtjtoi.  The  called  are  the 
Church.  Any  number  of  "  the  called "  collectively  considered,  are  a 
Church.     The  Church,  as  such,  is  not  an  organization ;  any  more  than 


206  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  human  race,  as  such,  is  a  society.  Men  must  organize  and  live  in 
society ;  but  their  organizing  does  not  make  them  men,  nor  members 
of  the  human  race.  In  like  manner  the  Church,  or  the  called,  as  such, 
are  not  an  organized  body,  though  it  is  their  duty  to  organize.  But 
organization  does  not  make  them  a  Church,  but  being  members  of  the 
Church,  i.  e.  xlrjrot,  they  associate  for  certain  prescribed  purposes.  '  It 
seems  to  us  that  a  large  portion  of  the  false  reasoning  connected  with 
this  whole  subject,  arises  from  the  erroneous  assumption  that  organiza- 
tion enters  into  the  very  idea  of  the  Church.  An  organized  body  may 
h^e  a  Church,  but  it  is  not  their  organization  that  makes  them  so  ;  be- 
cause any  number  of  the  called,  or  the  whole  body  of  them  as  a 
Church,  are  the  Church,  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  term.  When 
Christ  is  said  to  love,  Paul  to  have  persecuted,  or  we  labor  for  the 
Church,  the  word  does  not  designate  an  organized  body.  It  is  merely 
a  collective  term  for  the  people  of  God.  Since  "  the  called "  are,  ac- 
cording to  the  uniform  usage  of  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
effectually  called,  or  true  believers,  it  follows  that  the  Church  is  a  col- 
lective term  for  true  believers.  We  therefore  find  that  whatever  is 
affirmed  of  believers  is  affirmed  of  the  Church,  and  whatever  is  pro- 
mised to  believers  is  promised  to  the  Church.  If  the  Christians  of 
Rome,  Corinth,  or  Ephesus  are  addressed  as  the  Church  in  those  cities, 
they  are  at  the  same  time  addressed  as  believers,  as  saints,  as  those  who 
are  in  Christ,  as  led  by  the  Spirit,  and  as  heirs  of  eternal  life.  As 
however  no  man  can  look  upon  the  heart,  we  do  not  know  who  is  a 
true  believer ;  and  therefore  we  cannot  tell  who  is  a  member  of  the 
Church  or  body  of  Christ.  We  are  therefore  bound  to  do  as  the 
sacred  writers  did,  that  is,  to  regard  and  treat  every  man  as  a  believer 
who  makes  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ ;  and  of  course  we 
are  bound  to  regard  and  treat  any  body  of  such  men  as  a  Church.  If 
a  man  makes  no  profession  of  faith,  we  cannot  regard  him  as  a  be- 
liever ;  nor  can  we  so  regard  him  if  he  makes  any  pi'ofession  inconsistent 
with  the  existence  of  saving  faith.  And  consequently  if  a  body  of 
men  make  no  profession  of  faith,  they  cannot  be  a  Church ;  nor  can 
they  be  so  regarded,  if  they  make  a  profession  which  is  incompatible 
with  saving  faith  in  Christ.  Every  man,  therefore,  who  has  true  faith, 
is  a  member  of  Christ's  body,  Avhich  is  the  Church ;  and  every  man 
who  professes  such  faith  is  a  visible  or  professed  member  of  his  Church ; 
and  any  number  of  such  men  collectively  considered  is  a  branch  of 
the  Church.  If,  therefore,  we  deny  to  any  man  the  character  of  a 
Christian,  on  account  of  the  profession  which  he  makes,  we  must  be 
prepared  to  show  that  such  faith  is  incompatible  with  salvation.  For, 
if  possessing  such  doctrines  (or  professing  nothing  more  than  certain 
doctrines),  he  may  be  saved,  he  may  be  a  true  believer,  and  of  course 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  207 

a  member  of  the  Church.  And  ia  like  manuer,  if  we  deny  to  any 
body  of  men  the  character  of  a  Church,  on  account  of  its  creed,  we 
thereby  assert  that  no  man  holding  that  creed  can  be  saved.  To  de- 
termine, therefore,  whether  a  man  or  a  Church  is  to  be  denied  the 
Christian  character,  we  must  ascertain  Avhat  is  the  minimum  of  truth 
that  can  save  the  soul.  For  to  deny  that  a  man  is  a  Christian  on  ac- 
count of  his  ignorance  or  errors,  and  yet  admit  he  may  be  saved,  is  to 
contradict  ourselves.  And  to  say  that  a  body  of  such  men  is  no 
Church,  is  no  less  a  contradiction.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  the 
question.  What  is  a  true  Church  ?  resolves  itself  into  this :  How  little 
truth  may  avail  to  salvation  ?  This  is  a  question  we  are  hardly  com- 
petent to  answer,  and  there  is  no  need  of  answering  it.  We  can  tell 
what  is  a  pure  Church ;  and  with  that  standard  we  can  compare  our 
own  and  all  others,  and  regulate  our  intercourse  with  them  accordingly. 
The  course,  however,  commonly  pursued  is  to  give  a  definition  of  a 
pure  Church,  and  then  to  declare  any  community  not  embraced  in 
that  definition,  to  be  no  Church.  Thus  it  is  said,  a  Church  is  a  congre- 
gation of  believers  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached ;  the 
pure  word  of  God  is  not  preached  in  Rome,  therefore  Rome  is  not  a 
Church.  By  the  same  argument  the  whole  world  may  be  unchurched, 
save  our  own  particular  sect,  no  matter  how  narrow  that  sect  may  be. 
This  method  of  reasoning  ii  just  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  say, 
a  Christian  is  one  who  believes  the  doctrines  and  obeys  the  precepts  of 
Christ,  therefore  no  man  who  is  erroneous  in  doctrine  or  practice  can 
be  a  Christian ;  which  would  be  to  go  beyond  even  Perfectionists,  for 
they  do  not  make  a  perfect  faith  essential  to  the  character  of  a  Chris- 
tian. We  cannot  take  a  definition  of  a  perfect  Christian  as  the  rule  of 
decision  whether  any  particular  man  is  to  be  treated  as  a  brother ;  nor 
can  we  take  the  definition  of  a  pure  Church  as  the  criterion  of  the 
being  of  a  Church.  Any  man  who  professes  truth  enough  to  save  his 
soul,  is  not  to  be  denounced  as  no  Christian,  simply  for  his  faith's  sake. 
And  any  body  of  men  that  professes  truth  enough  to  save  men,  cannot 
on  the  ground  of  heresy  be  denied  the  character  of  a  Church. 

The  correctness  of  this  exposition  of  what  is  necessary  to  tlue  being 
of  a  Church,  is  plain,  1.  From  the  express  declarations  of  scripture. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  whosoever  is  a  true  worshipper  of  Christ,  no 
matter  how  ignorant  or  how  erroneous  he  may  be,  is  a  true  Christian. 
"Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  is  born  of, God." 
Such  is  the  explicit  declaration  of  the  Bible.  Whoever,  therefore, 
professes  to  be  a  worshippel*  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  to  love,  reverence  and  serve 
him  as  God,  does  thereby  profess  to  be  a  Christian ;  and  any  body  con- 
sisting of  those  who  profess  to  worship  Christ,  is  a  body  of  professed 
Christians,  that  is,  a  Church.     Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 


208  CHURCH  POLITY. 

addresses  himself  to  the  Church  of  God  in  that  city,  i  e.,  to  those  "  who 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Any  body  of  men, 
therefore,  that  retains  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation,  or  that  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  that  sets  him  forth  as  the  object  of  religious  worship 
and  confidence,  retains  the  vital  principle  of  Christianity.  Nothing 
can  prevent  the  saving  power  of  that  truth,  when  it  is  really  embraced. 
2.  Again,  according  to  our  standards,  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the 
visible  Church.  It  is  a  common  saying  of  Protestant  theologians,  "No 
man  has  God  for  his  father,  who  has  not  the  Church  for  his  mother." 
This  is  only  saying,  with  the  Scriptures,  that  there  is  no  salvation  out 
of  Christ.  But  if  these  premises  are  correct,  the  conclusion  necessarily 
follows,  that  any  religious  body  in  communion  with  which  men  may  be 
saved,  is  a  part  of  the  visible  Church ;  otherwise  men  are  saved  out  of 
that  Church.  The  visible  Church,  therefore,  according  to  our  stand- 
ards, consists  of  all  those  who  profess  saving  truth.  3.  This  point  is 
so  plain,  that  it  was  repeatedly  conceded  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 
The  question,  whether  the  Romish  Church  is  a  true  Church,  was  ad- 
mitted to  turn  on  the  previous  question :  Does  she  retain  truth  enough 
to  save  the  soul  ?  One  of  the  speakers  did,  indeed,  say  that  although 
there  were  true  believers  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  they  were  not  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  Church ;  which  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  since  the 
visible  Church  consists  of  all  who  profess  the  true  religion,  or  saving 
doctrine.  The  mere  fact  of  their  having  faith,  and  avowing  it  in  their 
conversation  and  dej)ortment,  makes  them  members  of  the  visible 
Church,  in  the  true,  scriptural,  and  Presbyterian,  though  not  in  the 
Puseyite,  sense  of  the  term. 

If  these  principles  are  correct,  we  have  only  to  apply  them  to  the 
case  in  hand,  and  ask.  Does  the  Church  of  Rome  retain  truth  enough 
to  save  the  soul  ?  We  do  not  understand  how  it  is  possible  for  any 
Christian  man  to  answer  this  question  in  the  negative.  They  retain  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  which  we  know  from  the  infallible  word 
of  God,  is  a  life-giving  doctrine.  They  retain  the  whole  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  They  teach  the  doctrine  of  atonement  far  more  fully  and 
accurately  than  multitudes  of  professedly  orthodox  Protestants.  They 
hold  a  much  higher  doctrine,  as  to  the  necessity  of  divine  influence, 
than  prevails  among  many  whom  we  recognize  as  Christians.  They 
believe  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  in 
eternal  life  and  judgment.  These  doctrines  are  in  their  creeds,  and 
however  they  may  be  perverted  and  overlaid,  still  as  general  proposi- 
tions they  are  affirmed.  And  it  must  be  remembered,  that  it  is  truth 
presented  in  general  propositions,  and  not  with  subtle  distinctions,  that 
saves  the  soul.  Protestants,  says  Bossuet,  cannot  deny  that  we  admit 
the  fundamentals  of  religion.     "  If  they  will  have  them  to  consist  in 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  209 

believing  that  we  must  adore  one  only  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy- 
Ghost  ;  and  that  Ave  must  put  our  trust  in  God  alone  through  his  Son, 
who  became  man,  was  crucified,  and  rose  again  for  us,  they  know  in 
their  conscience  that  we  profess  this  doctrine ;  and  if  they  add  those  other 
doctrines  which  are  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  they  do  not  doubt 
that  we  receive  them  all  without  exception."  Having  quoted  an  ad- 
mission to  this  efiect  from  Daille,  he  adds :  "  But  though  M.  Daille 
had  not  granted  thus  much,  the  thing  is  manifest  in  itself;  and  all  the 
world  knows  that  we  profess  all  those  doctrines  which  Protestants  call 
fundamental."  * 

It  is  further  evident  that  the  Church  of  Rome  retains  truth  enough 
to  save  the  soul,  from  the  fact  that  true  believers,  who  have  no  other 
means  of  instruction  than  those  therein  afforded,  are  to  be  found  in 
that  communion.  Wherever  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are,  there  is  the 
Spirit ;  and  wherever  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  still  the  Church.     It  is  one 

*  An  Exposition  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  by  the  Eight  Eev. 
J.  B.  Bossuet,  London,  1685,  p.  2.  On  Justification,  Bossuet  says :  "  We  believe, 
in  the  first  place,  that  our  sins  are  freely  forgiven  us  by  the  divine  mercy,  for 
Christ's  sake.  These  are  the  express  words  of  the  council  of  Trent.  .  .  .  See- 
ing the  Scriptures  explain  ths  remission  of  sins,  by  sometimes  telling  us  that  God 
covers  them,  and  sometimes  that  he  takes  them  away  and  blots  them  out  by  the 
grace  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  which  makes  us  new  creatures ;  we  believe  that  to  form 
a  perfect  idea  of  the  justification  of  a  sinner,  we  must  join  together  both  of  these 
expressions.  For  which  reason  we  believe  our  sins  not  only  to  be  covered,  but 
also  entirely  washed  away  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the  grace  of  re- 
generation ;  which  is  so  far  from  obscuring  or  lessening  that  idea  which  we  ought 
to  have  of  the  merit  of  his  blood,  on  the  contrary  it  heightens  and  augments  it. 
So  that  the  righteousness  of  Chi'ist  is  not  only  imputed  but  actually  communicated 
to  the  faithful,  by  the  operation  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  insomuch  that  they  are  not 
only  reputed,  but  rendered  just  by  his  grace."  p.  12.  It  is  easy  to  see  here  the 
unhappy  blending  of  justification  and  sanctification  together;  but  it  is  a  far  better 
statement  of  the  truth  than  is  to  be  found  in  multitudes  of  Arminian  writers  ;  and 
unspeakably  better  than  that,  which  for  a  hundred  years,  was  preached  from  the 
great  majority  of  the  pulpits  in  the  Church  of  England. 

Eomanists  teach  that  Christ  is  the  meritorious  ground  of  our  justification.  Thus 
the  council  of  Trent,  sess.  vi.  c.  7,  says :  Meritoria  (causa)  est  diledissimus  Dei 
unic/enitus,  qui  cum  csseinus  inimici,  per  nimiam  caritatem,  qua  dilexit  nos,  sua  sanctis- 
sima  passione  in  Urjno  crucis,  nobis  justificadonem  meruit.  And  in  c  8,  the  council 
say :  "Christum  sanctissima  sua  passione  in  ligno  crucis  nobis  justificationem  meruisse, 
et  pro  nobis  Deo  Patri  safisfecisse,  et  neminem  posse  essejustum,  nisi  cui  mertta  passio- 
nis  Domini  nostri  Jcsu  Christi  communicantur."  In  like  manner,  Bellarmin,  de 
Justificatione,  ii.  c.  2,  says :  "  We  are  justified  on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ ;" 
and  in  c  7,  he  says,  ''  If  Protestants  only  mean  that  the  merits  of  Christ  are  im- 
puted to  us,  because  they  are  given  to  us  by  God,  so  that  we  can  present  them  to 
the  Father  for  our  sins  since  Christ  undertook  to  make  satisfaction  for  us,  and  to 
reconcile  us  to  God  the  Father,  they  are  right."  Which  is  precisely  what  we  do 
mean.  » 

14 


210  CHURCH  POLITY. 

t 

of  the  worst  features  of  Puseyism,  that  it  takes  such  a  view  of  the 
Church,  as  to  force  its  advocates  to  deny  those  to  be  Christians  who 
exhibit  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Instead,  therefore,  of  loving  them  as 
brethren,  they  cast  out  their  names  as  evil ;  which  is  not  only  a  great 
sin,  but  a  great  detriment  to  their  own  souls.  We  shall  not  less  sin 
against  God  and  our  own  best  interests,  if  we  reject  as  reprobates  any 
of  the  real  followers  of  Christ,  no  matter  in  what  external  communion 
they  may  be  found.  We  rejoice,  therefore,  that  the  Assembly  freely 
admits,  in  their  Minute,  that  there  are  true  believers  in  the  Church  of. 
Rome.  Indeed,  we  are  not  sure  that  truth  would  not  demand  the  ad- 
mission that  there  were  more  of  evangelical  doctrine  and  of  true  reli- 
gion in  that  Church,  than  were  to  be  found  in  the  Church  of  England, 
or  in  some  of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  not- 
witliBtanding  their  orthodox  creeds,  during  their  long  declension  in  the 
last  century.  We  have  heretofore  had  the  misfortune  to  be  held  up  as 
the  friends  of  drunkenness,  and  the  advocates  of  slavery,  because  we 
could  not  believe  that  alcohol  is  sin,  and  every  slaveholder  a  thief; 
and  we  fear  that  even  good  men  may  now  regard  us  as  the  apologists 
of  Popery,  because  we  cannot  think  that  a  community  who  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  worship  the  Trinity,  who  hold  that  we  are 
justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  are  sanctified  by  his  Holy  Spirit, 
are  to  be  placed  in  the  same  category  with  Pagans  and  Mohammedans. 
And  we  are  constrained  to  say,  that  as  the  cause  of  temperance  and  the 
interests  of  the  slave,  suffer  greatly  from  the  extravagance  of  their  ad- 
vocates, so  we  fear  the  cause  of  Protestantism  suffers  materially  from 
the  undiscriminating  denunciations  heaped  upon  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  from  transferring  the  abhorrence  due  to  her  corruptions,  to  her 
whole  complicated  system  of  truth  and  error. 

The  view  presented  above  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  sustained  by  the 
authority  of  the  Reformers,  and  of  all  Protestant  Churches.  We  have 
already  remarked,  that  the  question  whether  the  Church  of  Rome  is  a 
true  Church,  may  be  affirmed  or  denied,  according  to  the  sense  attached 
to  the  terms.  Accordingly,  it  is  both  affirmed  and  denied,  by  the  par- 
ties referred  to.  They  use  the  strongest  terms  of  denunciation  of  the 
whole  papal  system  ;  its  perversion  of  the  truth,  its  false  doctrines,  its 
corruption  in  worship  and  morals ;  its  tyranny  and  persecuting  spirit. 
They  declared  that  Church  to  be  antichristian  and  apostate,  the  mys- 
tical Babylon,  from  which  the  people  of  God  are  commanded  to  with- 
draw. All  this  is  said  not  only  by  the  Reformers,  but  by  Churches  and 
theologians  down  to  the  present  day.  At  the  same  time,  and  in  the 
same  breath,  they  said  that  viewed  in  a  different  light,  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  still  a  Church,  just  as  the  apostate  Israelites  were  still  the  cov- 
enant people  of  God.     If  the  Israelites  were  denominated  from  the 


VALIDITY  OF  EOMISH  BAPTISM.  211 

character  of  tlieir  rulers,  or  of  the  mass  of  the  people,  from  their 
authoritative  declarations  and  acts,  they  were  apostates  and  idolaters. 
If  denominated  from  the  relation  which  they  still  sustained  to  God, 
from  the  truth  which  they  continued  to  profess,  or  from  the  real  saints 
who  were  to  be  found  among  them,  they  were  still  the  Church,  and 
were  so  addressed  by  the  prophets,  and  their  circumcision  regarded  as 
the  seal  of  God's  covenant.  Thus  Calvin  says :  "  If  the  Church  be 
considered  as  the  body  whose  judgment  we  are  bound  to  revere,  to 
whose  authority  we  must  defer,  whose  instructions  we  must  receive,  to 
whose  discipline  we  must  submit,  whose  communion  we  must  religiously 
and  in  all  things  cultivate,  we  cannot  concede  the  papacy  to  be  the 
Church,  as  though  the  obligation  to  obedience  still  continued.  Yet  we 
willingly  concede  to  it  what  the  prophets  conceded  to  the  Jews  and 
Israelites.  .  .  .  Since  then  we  are  not  willing  to  concede  the  title 
Church  unconditionally  to  the  papists,  we  do  not  thereby  deny  that 
there  are  churches  among  them,  but  only  contend  for  the  true  and 
legitimate  constitution  of  the  Church,  with  which  communion  is  re- 
quired in  sacraments  and  doctrine."  Lib.  iv.  c,  2.  §§  10-12.  To  the 
same  effect  Turrettin  denies  that  the  modern  Church  of  Rome  can, 
without  qualification,  be  called  a  true  Church  of  Christ ;  but  to  explain 
his  position  he  says :  "  The  Church  of  Rome  may  be  viewed  under  a 
two-fold  aspect,  as  Christian  in  reference  to  the  profession  of  Christi- 
anity, and  of  the  evangelical  truths  which  it  retains ;  and  as  it  is  pa- 
pal, in  reference  to  its  subjection  to  the  Pope,  and  to  its  corruptions,  as 
Avell  in  manners  as  in  doctrine,  which  it  has  mixed  up  with  those  truths 
and  built  upon  them,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  In  the  former 
aspect,  we  do  not  deny  that  there  is  some  truth  in  that  Church ;  but  in 
the  latter,  under  which  she  is  contemplated  when  we  deny  her  to  be  a 
true  Church,  we  deny  that  she  is  Christian  and  apostolical,  but  affirm 
her  to  be  antichristian  and  apostate.  In  this  view,  improprie  et  secun- 
dum quid,  we  admit  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  a  Christian  Church  in 
three  respects.  1.  In  respect  to  the  people  of  God,  the  elect,  still  re- 
maining in  it,  who  are  commanded  to  come  out.  2.  In  respect  to 
the  external  form,  in  which  we  discover  some  of  the  elements  of  a 
Church,  in  respect  as  well  to  the  word  of  God  and  its  preaching,  which 
though  corrupted,  still  remain,  and  as  to  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  especially  baptism,  which,  as  to  the  substance,  still  remains 
entire.  3.  As  to  Christian  and  evangelical  doctrines,  as  concerning 
the  Trinity,  Christ  as  mediator,  his  incarnation,  death  and  resurrection, 
and  others  by  which  she  is  distinguished  from  pagans  and  infidels." — 
vol.  iii.  p.  135. 

We  admit  that  it  is  a  very  unfortunate  method  of  speaking,  to  say 
a  body  is  a  Church  secundum  quid,  and  secundum  quid  is  not  a  Church. 


212  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Still  this  is  an  inconvenience  we  have  to  submit  to  on  almost  all  sub- 
jects, and  in  the  present  instance,  it  expresses  a  great  truth.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  these  were  holy  men,  who  trembled  at  the  word 
of  God,  Christ  had  commanded  his  disciples  to  hear  the  Church,  to 
remain  in  her  communion  and  to  submit  to  her  discipline.  To  admit, 
therefore,  Avithout  qualification,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a  true 
Church,  seemed  to  include  an  admission  of  an  obligation  to  receive  her 
doctrines  and  submit  to  her  authority.  This  they  could  not  do.  They 
therefore  denied  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a  Church  in  any  such 
sense  as  to  require  communion  and  obedience.  They  thereby  intended  to 
deny  that  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  the  hierarchy,  transubstantiation, 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  Avorshipping  of  saints,  and  the  other  numer- 
ous corruptions  of  popery,  belong  to  the  Church  of  God ;  that  they  are 
Christian  or  apostolical,  and  as  such  to  be  received  and  submitted  to. 
While  they  admitted  that  the  reception  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  word 
of  God,  the  profession  of  saving  doctrines,  the  sacraments,  the  presence 
of  the  elect,  are  characteristics  of  the  Church,  and  consequently  that 
any  body  of  which  these  things  can  be  afiirmed,  cannot  consistently 
with  the  truth  of  God,  be  simply  and  Avithout  qualification,  declared  to 
be  no  more  a  Church  than  a  company  of  pagans.  The  necessity  of 
making  these  distinctions,  of  affirming  and  denying  the  same  proj^osi- 
tion,  shows  the  impropriety  of  the  question.  Instead  of  asking.  What 
Ls  a  Church  ?  we  should  ask,  What  is  a  pure  Church  ?  All  the  defini- 
tions given  in  our  books,  tell  us  Avhat  a  pure  Church  is.  And  when 
Protestants  deny  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  a  Church,  they  deny  that 
she  comes  within  their  definition  of  a  jDure  Church,  though  they  admit 
her  to  be  a  corrupt  and  apostate  Church.  The  whol6  foundation,  there- 
fore, of  the  argument  of  the  Assembly,  seems  to  us  to  be  false.  It  as- 
sumes that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  in  no  sense  a  Church;  which  is  to 
assume  that  she  does  not  admit  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
that  she  does  not  profess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  that  she  does  not  profess  saving  truths,  and  that  she  does 
not  bring  forth  children  unto  God ;  all  which  assumptions  are  notori- 
ously and  confessedly  false,  and  therefore  the  conclusion  which  is  de- 
rived from  these  assumptions,  must  be  unsound. 

Long  as  this  article  has  become,  there  is  one  other  view  of  this  sub- 
ject we  must  be  permitted  to  present.  It  matters  not  whether  the  Pa- 
pacy as  an  organization  is  a  Church  or  no,  as  far  as  the  present  question 
is  concerned.  The  contrary  assumption  is  founded  upon  the  idea  that 
baptism  is  an  act  of  a  Church ;  or  that  the  administrator  so  acts  in  the 
name  of  the  organized  society  to  which  he  belongs,  that  those  whom 
he  baptizes  thereby  become  members  of  that  society.  It  was  hence 
argued  that  the  recipients  of  Romish  baptism,  are  made  Romanists, 


VALIDITY  OF  ROMISH  BAPTISM.  213 

and  are  baptized  into  a  profession  of  all  the  heresies  of  popery.  This 
appears  to  us  an  entirely  wrong  view  of  the  subject,  and  to  be  founded 
on  the  Puseyite  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  a  corporation,  or  organized 
body,  into  which  men  are  admitted  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  It  is 
however  the  admitted  doctrine  of  Protestants,  that  the  Church  Catholic 
is  not  an  organized  society.  It  is  also  admitted  among  Protestants  that 
baptism  does  not  initiate  the  recipient  into  any  particular  Church,  but 
into  the  Church  catholic.  The  eunuch  when  baptized  by  the  road  side, 
Paul  when  baptized  in  his  chamber,  the  jailor  at  Philippi,  and  the 
thousands  of  scattered  believers  baptized  by  the  apostles  were  not 
made  members  of  any  particular  Church,  or  organized  body,  by  their 
baptism.  After  they  were  baptized,  and  thus  introduced  into  the 
Church  catholic,  they  associated  or  organized  themselves  into  particu- 
lar Churches.  So  at  the  present  day,  no  man  is  made  an  Episcopalian, 
Presbyterian,  or  Methodist  by  his  baptism,  but  after  baptism,  he  joins 
what  particular  denomination  he  sees  fit.  'No  man  therefore  is  made  a 
papist  by  being  baptized  by  a  papist.  It  follows  from  this  that  the  va- 
lidity of  baptism  does  not  depend  upon  the  character  of  the  particular 
denomination  to  which  the  administrator  belongs ;  because  he  does  not 
act  in  the  name  of  that  denomination,  but  as  a  member  of  the  Church 
catholic.  And  every  man  who  professes  saving  truth  is  a  member  of 
that  Church.  It  matters  not,  therefore,  whether  the  Quakers  as  a  so- 
ciety come  within  the  definition  of  a  Church ;  individual  Quakers,  if 
they  have  the  faith  of  God's  elect  and  profess  it,  are  members  of  his 
Church.  And  so,  too,  it  matters  not  whether  the  Papacy  comes  within 
the  definition  of  a  church ;  indi'S'idual  papists,  if  they  profess  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  are  within  the  pale  of  the  Church  catholic, 
and,  if  they  have  public  authority,  may  baptize  in  the  name  of  Christ. 

Baptism,  therefore,  not  being  an  ordinance  of  any  particular  Church, 
but  of  the  Church  catholic,  and  every  man  who  professes  saving  truth 
being  a  member  of  that  Church,  Romish  baptism,  if  administered  by 
a  man  professing  such  truth,  is  Christian  baptism.  It  is  baptism  ad- 
ministered by  a  member  of  the  visible  Church,  having  public  authority 
in  that  Church,  which  is  all  that  can  be  said  of  baptism  administered 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  by  the  moderator  of  our  As- 
sembly. 

We  maintain,  therefore,  Romish  baptism  to  be  valid ;  that  is,  that  it 
avails  to  make  the  recipient  a  member  of  the  Church  catholic,  because 
it  is  a  washing  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  with  the  design 
to  signify,  seal  and  apply  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is 
administered  by  ordained  ministers ;  for  a  Romish  priest  is  a  man  pub- 
licly called  to  the  office  of  a  presbyter.  It  is  administered  by  a  mem- 
ber of  the  visible  Church ;  for  every  man  who  confesses  that  Jesus  is 


214  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  Son  of  God,  is  a  member  of  that  Church.  It  is  only  by  adopting 
the  hierarchical  or  Puseyite  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  of  orders, 
that  the  opposite  conclusion  can  be  sustained.  We  must  restrict  the 
Church  to  miserably  narrow  limits,  within  which  the  truth  and  Spirit 
of  God  refuse  to  be  confined ;  and  we  must  claim  an  authority  and 
virtue  for  specific  forms  of  ordination,  which  the  Scriptures  nowhqre 
sanction.  We  are,  therefore,  constrained  to  regard  the  decision  of  the 
Assembly  as  in  direct  conflict  with  our  standards,  and  with  the  word  of 
God ;  and  as  incompatible  with  Protestant  principles,  as  well  as  with 
the  practice  of  the  whole  Protestant  world.  We  have  no  scruple  in 
saying  this.  For  in  protesting  against  the  decision  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty-nine  members  of  the  Assembly,  we  can  hide  ourselves  in  the 
crowd  of  169,000,000  of  faithful  men  who,  since  the  Reformation,  have 
maintained  the  opposite  and  more  catholic  doctrine.* 

If  the  Church  of  Rome  is  antichrist,  a  synagogue  of  Satan,  how  can 
its  ordinances  be  Christian  sacraments  ?  This,  we  doubt  not,  is  the 
diflSculty  which  weighs  most  with  those  who  reject  Romish  baptisms  as 
invalid.  We  would  ask  such  persons  whether  they  admit  that  a 
Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  child  of  God  ?  If  he  can,  how  can  a  man 
be  a  member  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan  and  of  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  same  time  ?  Is  there  no  inconsistency  here  ?  If  not,  then  there  is 
no  inconsistency  in  declaring  that  the  Romish  system,  so  far  as  it  is 
distinguished  from  that  of  evangelical  Churches,  is  anti christian,  and 

*  We  have  heard  it  repeatedly  objected  that  this  whole  discussion  attributes  too 
much  importance  to  baptism.  What  is  the  harm,  it  is  asked,  of  declaring  a  par- 
ticular kind  of  baptism  to  be  invalid  ?  or  of  repeating  the  ordinance  ?  We  have 
also  heard  brethren  say,  they  left  the  matter  to  the  decision  of  the  applicant  for 
admission  to  our  communion.  If  he  wished  to  be  rebaptized,  they  rebaptized 
him ;  if  he  was  satisfied  with  the  baptism  received  in  the  Church  of  Home,  they 
did  not  insist  on  a  repetition  of  the  ordinance.  We  have  no  superstitious  feeling 
on  this  subject,  but  we  object  to  such  repetition.  1.  Because  it  involves  a  declara- 
tion of  what  is  not  true.  It  declares  that  to  be  no  baptism  which  has  all  the  essen- 
tial characteristics  of  that  sacrament.  It  declares  that  the  recipient  had  never 
before  avowed  himself  a  Christian,  when  the  fact  is  not  so.  2.  Because  we  have 
neither  scriptural  authority  nor  example  for  the  repetition  of  the  rite;  and  such 
repetition  is  forbidden  by  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of 
the  whole  Christian  Church.  3.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  the 
ordinance.  Baptismus  est  signum  initiationis.  It  is  a  declaration  that  the  recipient 
now  for  the  first  time  takes  upon  him  the  obligations,  and  claims  the  privileges  of 
a  professing  Christian.  If  a  man  is  installed  into  a  particular  office,  it  is  a  de- 
claration that  he  was  not  before  publicly  invested  with  the  office.  If  he  presents 
himself  to  be  married  to  a  particular  woman,  it  is  a  declaration  that  she  is  not 
already  his  wife.  And  if  he  presents  himself  for  baptism,  he  declares  that  he  has 
not  been  washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  in  order  to  his  initiation 
into  the  visible  Church. 


INFANT  MEMBEES  SUBJECTS  OF  DISCIPLINE.  215 

yet  tliat  those  who  are  groaning  under  that  system  are  in  the  visible 
Church.  The  terms  antichrist,  synagogue  of  Satan,  &c.,  refer  not  to 
the  mass  of  the  people,  nor  to  the  presbyters  of  that  communion,  nor 
the  word  of  God,  nor  the  saving  truths  which  they  profess,  but  to  the 
Popish  hierarchy  and  its  corruptions.  That  hierarchy,  with  its  usurj)a- 
tions  and  errors,  is  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  the  man  of  sin,  which  in 
the  Church  catholic,  the  temple  of  God,  exalts  itself  above  all  that  is 
called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped.  If  Eoman  Catholics  are  no  part 
of  the  visible  Church,  then  the  Romish  hierarchy  is  not  "  the  man  of 
sin"  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  for  he  was  to  rise  and  rule  in  the 
Church.  It  is,  therefore,  one  thing  to  denounce  the  Romish  system, 
and  another  to  say  that  Romanists  are  no  part  of  the  Church  catholic. 
And  if  they  are  in  the  Church,  their  baptism  being  a  washing  with 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  is  Christian  baptism ;  just  as  the 
word  of  God,  when  read  or  j)reached  by  them,  is  still  his  word,  and  is 
to  be  received  and  obeyed  as  such. 

§  3,    Inrant  ]!HI embers  Subjects  of  Discipline.  [^] 

[Dir.for  Wor.  chap.  ix.  sec.  1. — Comp.  Digests  of  1873,  pp.  671,  672.] 

We  fully  agree  with  Dr.  Thornwell  in  all  he  said  about  our  ecclesi- 
astical courts  and  other  points  in  the  new  Book  of  Discipline,  which 
had  been  the  subjects  of  criticism,  except  the  relation  of  baptized  per- 
sons to  the  Church.  As  to  this  point,  there  were  three  views  presented 
in  the  Committee  of  Revision.  First,  that  which  favoured  the  form  in 
which  the  subject  is  exhibited  in  the  old  Book.  It  is  there  said :  "All 
baptized  persons  are  members  of  the  Church,  are  under  its  care,  and 
subject  to  its  government  and  discipline ;  and  when  they  have  arrived 
at  the  years  of  discretion,  they  are  bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
Church  members."  This  undoubtedly  expresses  the  general  conviction 
of  the  Christian  world.  It  has  been  embodied  in  the  principles,  and 
carried  out  in  the  practice  of  all  historical  Churches  from  the  begin- 
ning, until  the  rise  of  the  Independents.  It  undoubtedly  expresses  the 
faith  and  practice  of  our  own  Church,  from  its  organization  until  the 
present  time.  Some  of  the  Committee  were  very  strenuous  that  it 
should  be  allowed  to  retain  its  place  in  the  Revised  Book,  without 
alteration.  A  second  view,  while  admitting  that  baptized  persons  were 
in  some  sense  members  of  the  Church,  seemed  to  regard  them  as  only 
under  its  fostering  care,  but  not  subject  to  its  government  or  discipline. 
Third,  as  a  compromise,  it  was  proposed  to  say,  as  in  the  Revised  Book, 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly ;"  remarks  on  Dr.  Thorn  well's 
speech  in  support  of  the  EevisedBook  of  Discipline ;  Princeton  Beview,  1859,  p. 
603.] 


216  CHURCH  POLITY. 

tliat  while  all  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the  Church,  and  under 
its  care  and  government,  yet  the  proper  subjects  oi  judicial  process  are 
those  who  have  professed  their  faith  in  Christ.*  In  this  form  it  was 
passed,  but  not  unanimously — Dr.  McGill  not  being  willing  to  give  up 
the  clear  statement  of  the  old  Book.  In  the  new  form,  a  distinction  is 
made  between  ^oi'er/iHie^if  and /wtiicia^  process;  that  is,  between  disci- 
pline in  its  wide  and  its  narrow  sense.  And  as  the  paragraph,  in  its 
revised  form,  asserts  that  baptized  persons  are  subject  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  it  was  thought  that  the  great  jDrinciple  involved 
remained  intact.  AVe  are  free  to  confess  that  the  old  form  is,  in  our 
view,  greatly  to  be  preferred ;  and  we  are  not  surprised  at  the  opposi- 
tion which  the  change  has  elicited,  although  we  voted  for  it,  as  a  com- 
promise. Dr.  Thornwell's  argument  assumes  that  the  indisj^ensable 
condition  under  which  a  man  becomes  the  subject  of  discipline,  is  his 
own  personal  and  voluntary  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  This  is  per- 
fectly intelligible  and  inevitable,  if  a  personal  and  voluntary  confession 
of  faith  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  Church  membership.  If  it  is 
not,  the  principle  is  out  of  its  place.  It  does  not  belong  to  the  theory 
of  infant  Church  membership.  One  syllogism  is.  Members  of  the 
Church  are  the  proper  subjects  of  discipline :  All  baptized  persons  are 
members  of  the  Church :  Therefore,  all  baptized  persons  are  the  proj)er 
subjects  of  discipline.  This  is  the  old  and  common  doctrine.  The 
Independent  frames  his  argument  thus :  Members  of  the  Church  are 
the  j)roper  subjects  of  discipline :  Only  those  who  voluntarily  j)rofess 
their  faith  in  Christ  are  members  of  the  Church :  Therefore,  only  those 
who  thus  profess  their  faith  are  the  proper  subjects  of  discipline.  Dr. 
Thornwell  adopts  neither  of  these  syllogisms.  He  objects  to  the  major 
proposition  in  the  former  of  the  two.  He  denies  that  all  members  of 
the  Church  are  the  proper  subjects  of  discipline.  He  distinguishes  be- 
tween professing  and  non-professing  members,  and  makes  voluntary 
profession  indispensable  to  that  relation  to  the  Church,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  discipline.  But  this  is  contrary  to  all  analogy.  A 
Hebrew  child  was  a  member  of  the  Theocracy  by  birth,  and  subject  to 
all  its  laws,  independently  of  all  profession.  So  every  Englishman  or 
American  is  a  member  of  the  state,  and  subject  to  its  laws,  without 
any  personal  and  voluntary  profession  of  allegiance.     We  see  not  how 

*  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  all  the  membera  of  a  large  committee  who  may 
agree  to  its  report  are  of  the  same  mind  as  to  all  the  principles  which  the  report 
may  contain.  It  is  the  report  of  the  committee,  because  the  act  of  the  majority, 
and  the  minority  agree  to  it  as  a  whole,  while  they  reserve  their  right  to  their  own 
judgment  as  to  its  details.  There  is  no  breach  of  confidence,  therefore,  in  any 
member  of  such  committee,  avowing  his  preference  for  some  other  form  of  expres- 
sion than  that  which  the  majority  of  his  brethren  decided  to  adopt. 


INFANT  MEMBERS  SUBJECTS  OF  DISCIPLINE.  217 

this  principle  can  be  denied,  in  its  application  to  the  Church,  without 
giving  up  our  whole  doctrine,  and  abandoning  the  ground  to  the  Inde- 
j)endents  and  Anabaptists.  If,  as  we  all  hold,  the  children  of  believing 
parents  are,  by  the  ordinance  of  God,  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as 
members  of  the  Church,  this  of  necessity  involves  their  right  to  its  pri- 
vileges and  their  subjection  to  its  laws.  Dr.  Thorn  well  objects  that, 
according  to  this  principle,  all  baptized  persons  must  be  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  table,  and  that  we  should  have  our  Churches  filled  with 
hypocrites.  This,  however,  is  a  non-sequitur.  A  person  being  a  citi- 
zen of  England,  or  America,  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  does  not 
give  him  the  right  of  suffrage.  That  right  is  limited  by  the  laws  of 
the  state.  In  England,  and  in  some  of  the  states  of  this  Union,  it  de- 
pends on  the  possession  of  a  given  amount  of  property ;  iii  other  states, 
on  the  attainment  of  the  age  of  twenty-one ;  as  to  females,  they  never 
acquire  the  privilege.  In  every  case  the  right  is  limited  by  what  the 
state  deems  the  possession  of  the  requisite  qualifications.  So,  in  the 
Church,  admission  to  the  Lord's  table,  or  to  Church  offices,  is  limited 
by  the  possession  of  the  qualifications  which  the  word  of  God  pre- 
scribes. It  by  no  means  therefore  follows,  that  because  baptized  j)er- 
sons  are  subject  to  discipline,  they  are  entitled  to  admission  to  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

The  Doctor  further  objects,  that  as  the  object  of  discipline  is  not  the 
vindication  of  justice,  but  to  produce  repentance,  it  is  utterly  absurd 
in  regard  to  "  a  man  who  has  never  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  in  his 
soul."  This  is  surely  a  strange  idea.  Cannot  the  means  of  repent- 
ance be  used  in  reference  to  the  unconverted?  Dr.  Thorn  well  himself 
says,  that  baptized  persons  who  do  not  act  in  accordance  with  their 
obligations,  should  be  "followed  with  exhortation,  remonstrance,  and 
prayers."  But  are  not  exhortation  and  remonstrance  means  of  repent- 
ance? Do  they  not  as  much  suppose  a  recognition  of  the  claims  of 
God  as  the  subjection  to  discipline?  They  are  indeed  forms  of  disci- 
pline ;  and  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms, 
to  say  that  a  man  is  a  member  of  the  Church  and  not  subject  to  its 
discipline.  Whether  he  shall  be  subject  to  that  particular  form  of  dis- 
cipline implied  in  "judicial  process,"  might  be  a  question.  But  as  his 
amenability  to  such  process  is  denied  on  grounds  which,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  involve  the  denial  of  his  true  relation  to  the  Church,  we  are  deci- 
dedly in  favour  of  the  paragraph  as  it  stands  in  our  present  Book. 


218  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

§  4.    Terms  of  Coiumnnioii. 

a.   The  Lord's  Table  for  the  Lord's  People.  [*] 

^Directory  for  Worship,  chap,  viii.,  sec.  iv.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  669,  44,  307, 
487, 495.] 

Several  of  tlie  answers  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Over- 
tures to  the  questions  submitted  to  them,  contain  important  principles. 
Of  these  answers  the  following  are  of  the  most  consequence : 

1.  An  inquiry  on  the  lawfulness  of  admitting  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
persons  not  holding  the  doctrines,  or  submitting  to  the  discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Committee  reported  a  resolution,  sta- 
ting in  substance,  that  as  to  the  knowledge  and  deportment  of  persons 
applying,  the  session  must  judge,  save  in  the  case  of  persons  invited  to 
sit  from  other  churches.  After  some  inquiries  and  explanations  the 
report  was  adopted. 

The  ^principles  of  Church  communion  are  so  clearly  laid  down  in 
Scripture,  and  so  distinctly  stated  in  our  Standards,  that  whenever  we 
see  such  inquiries  as  the  above  presented,  we  take  it  for  granted  they 
come  from  Congregationalists,  who  think,  in  many  cases,  each  particu- 
lar parish  Church  may  establish  its  own  terms  of  communion,  or  from 
some  other  source,  foreign  to  our  own  Church.  Knowledge"  to  discern 
the  Lord's  body,  faith  to  feed  upon  him,  repentance,  love,  and  new 
obedience,  are  the  only  conditions  of  Christian  communion  which  any 
Church  on  earth  has  a  right  to  impose.  The  Lord's  table  is  for  the 
Lord's  people — and  we  commit  a  great  sin,  if  we  presume  to  debar  any 
man,  giving  credible  evidence  of  being  a  child  of  God,  from  our  Chris- 
tian fellowship.  All  imposition  of  other  terms,  whether  relating  to 
unessential  doctrines,  to  slavery,  temperance,  hymnology,  or  anything 
else,  is  settmg  up  ourselves  above  God  in  his  own  house ;  and  that  is 
the  vital  germ  of  antichrist. 

b.   Credible  Evidence  of  Conversion  alone  required,  [f] 

[Directory  for  Worship,  chap,  ix.,  sec.  iii. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  306,  475, 
495,674-677.] 

The  ecclesiastical  principles  of  this  discourse  ["  a  Discourse  delivered 
in  Dec.  1839,  by  J.  C.  Coit,"  of  Cheraw,  S.  C]  we  regard  as  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  the  leading 
doctrine  of  this  sermon  that  no  man  is  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  a 
Christian  who  does  not  adopt  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 

[*From  article  on  ''  The  General  Assembly  ;"  Princeton  Review,  1853,  p.  452.] 
[f  From  article  reviewing  Discourse  named  in  text;  Princeton  Review,  1840,  p. 
689.] 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNIOX.  219 

or  some  formula  of  doctrine  of  like  import.  The  exclusive  principle  of 
Christianity,  the  writer  teaches,  is  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  accor- 
ding to  our  standards ;  all  who  do  not  adopt  that  doctrine  as  thus  set 
forth,  we  are  bound  to  denounce,  and  to  have  no  communion  with  them 
as  Christians.  He  censures  the  Church  for  having  "  intermingled  in 
religious  correspondence  with  Arminians,  Methodists,  and  Pelagians." 
He  sneers  repeatedly  at  the  expression  "  Sister  Churches."  He  exclaims, 
"  We  turn  the  Xew  School  Presbyterians  out  of  our  house,  because 
we  say  they  deny  our  faith,  our  gospel ;  and  avowed  Arminians  are 
invited  into  it,  welcomed  and  embraced  as  Christian  brethren."  Tliis 
idea  pervades  the  whole  discourse,  and  unless  we  are  prepared  to  maiL- 
tain  this  exclusive  principle,  all  talk  of  refcrm,  he  calls,  mere  vapouring. 

Kow  we  confidently  affirm,  that  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  in  direct  opposition  to  her 
spirit  and  principles.  The  first  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  declara- 
tion, though  negative,  is  conclusive.  The  fact  that  our  Church  no 
where  enjoins  the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  a  term  of 
Christian  communion,  is  proof  positive  that  she  does  not  consider  it 
necessary.  She  wisely  demands  the  adoption  of  that  Confession  of  all 
who  are  admitted  to  the  office  of  bishop,  or  ruling  elder,  or  deacon, 
but  she  has  never  required  it  of  the  private  members  of  the  Church. 
Many  of  our  Xew  School  brethren  went  to  the  extreme  of  asserting  that 
our  Church  required  of  her  ministers  nothing  but  what  was  essential 
to  the  CTirLstian  character ;  and  now  it  seems  that  some  are  for  going 
to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  teach  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  the 
test  not  only  of  ministerial,  but  of  Christian  communion.  These  ex- 
tremes are  equally  dangerous  and  equally  opposed  to  our  standards. 

It  is  not,  however,  by  merely  abstaining  from  requiring  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  private  members,  that  our  Church 
teaches  that  such  adoption  is  not  necessary  to  Christian  communion, 
but  by  expressly  teaching  the  contrary  doctrine.  Our  standards  from 
beginning  to  end  teach  that  we  are  bound  to  regard  and  treat  as 
Christians,  and  to  receive  to  our  communion  as  such,  all  who  give 
credible  evidence  of  being  true  Christians ;  and  she  no  where  pre- 
scribes, as  part  of  that  evidence,  the  adoption  of  the  whole  system  of 
doctrine  contained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  "  The  Catholic 
Church,"  our  Confession  teaches,  "hath  been  sometimes  more,  and 
sometimes  less  visible.  And  particular  churches,  which  are  members 
thereof,  are  more  or  less  pure,  according  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel  is  taught  and  embraced,  ordinances  administered,  and  public 
worship  performed  more  or  less  purely  in  them.  The  purest  Churches 
under  heaven  are  subject  both  to  mixture  and  error ;  and  some  have 
so  degenerated  as  to  become  no  Churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of 


220  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Satan."  *  In  describing  those  who  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  Chris- 
tian communion,  the  Confession  says :  "All  ignorant  and  ungodly 
persons,  as  they  are  unfit  to  enjoy  communion  with  him,  so  are  they 
unworthy  of  the  Lord's  table."  f  It  is  here  plainly  taught  that  those 
who  are  fit  for  communion  with  the  Lord  should  be  admitted  to  his 
table.  And  what  a  monstrous  doctrine  is  the  opposite  assumption ! 
Who  are  Ave,  that  we  should  refuse  communion  with  those  with  whom 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  commune  ?  We  devoutly  thank  God  that 
no  such  anti-Christian  doctrine  is  countenanced  by  our  Church.  In 
the  Larger  Catechism,  in  answer  to  the  question,[J]  May  one  who 
doubteth  of  his  being  in  Christ,  or  of  his  due  preparation,  come  to  the 
Lord's  supper?  it  is  said,  "t)ne  who  doubteth  of  his  being  in  Christ, 
or  of  his  due  preparation  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  may 
have  true  interest  in  Christ,  though  he  be  not  assured  thereof,  and  in 
God's  account  hath  it,  if  he  be  duly  affected  with  the  appi'ehension  of 
the  want  of  it,  and  unfeignedly  desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to 
depart  from  iniquity,  in  which  case  (because  promises  are  made,  and 
this  sacrament  is  appointed  for  the  relief  of  even  weak  and  doubting 
Christians)  he  is  to  bewail  his  unbelief,  and  labour  to  have  his  doubts 
resolved  ;  and  so  doing,  he  may  and  ought  to  come  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, that  he  may  be  further  strengthened."  And  in  the  immediately- 
following  answer  we  are  taught  that  it  is  only  "  the  ignorant  and  scan- 
dalous" whom  we  are  authorized  to  debar  from  communion.  The 
qualifications  for  the  Lord's  supper,  as  laid  down  in  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, are  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  faith  to  feed  upon 
him,  repentance,  love,  and  new  obedience.  In  the  Directory,  chapter 
8,  we  are  told  that  "  the  ignorant  and  scandalous  are  not  to  be  admit- 
ted to  the  Lord's  supper."  And  in  the  following  chapter,  in  reference 
to  the  young,  it  is  said,  "  When  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  if 
they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  Steady,  and  have  sufficient 
knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be  informed,  it  is 
their  duty  and  privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's  supper."  And  on  the 
same  page  it  is  said,  "  Those  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances, shall  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge  and  piety." 

Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  plainer  than  that  our  Church  requires 
nothing  more  than  credible  evidence  of  Christian  character  as  the  con- 
dition of  Christian  communion.  Of  that  evidence  the  Church  ofiicers 
are  to  judge.  Not  one  Avord  is  said  of  the  adoption  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  or  of  any  thing  but  the  evidences  of  piety.  Any  man, 
therefore,  who  gives  evidence  of  being  a  Christian,  we  are  bound  by 


*  Confession,  ch.  25.    §4. 6-  t  Con.  29.    8. 

[J  Ques.  147.] 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNION.  221 

the  rules  of  our  Church  to  admit  to  our  communion.  And  so  far  from 
there  being  the  slightest  intimation  that  the  adoption  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  our  doctrine  contained  in  our  standards  is  necessary  to  a  man's 
being  a  Christian,  there  is  the  strongest  evidence  to  the  contrary.  This 
evidence  is  to  be  found  in  the  omission  of  any  mention  of  the  stand- 
ards in  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  communion  of  saints ;  in 
the  mention  of  other  terms  than  those  of  subscription  to  a  formula  of 
doctrine,  and  in  the  admission  that  true  Churches  may  be  impure  botli 
as  to  doctrine  and  practice,  that  is,  may  reject  what  we  hold  to  be  truth 
Avithout  forfeiting  their  Christian  character. 

The  doctrine  here  contended  for  has  been  repeatedly  recognized  by 
the  General  Assembly.  So  recently  as  May,  1839,  in  their  letter  to 
the  churches,  the  Assembly  said :  "  We  have  ever  admitted  to  our 
communion  all  those  who,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  were  sincere 
disciples  of  Jesus  Christ."  They  add,  however,  that  "  this  has  no  re- 
ference to  the  admission  of  men  to  offices  in  the  house  of  God,"  With 
regard  to  all  office-bearers,  they  say :  "  The  founders  of  our  Church, 
and  all  who  have  entered  it  with  enlightened  views  and  honest  inten- 
tions, have  declared  to  the  world  and  to  all  other  Christian  Churches 
that  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms,  is  that  sound  doctrine,  which  we  are  to  require 
of  all  those  who  seek  the  office  of  a  bishop."  "Such  are  the  princi- 
ples," add  the  General  Assembly,  "  on  which  our  Church  was  founded, 
and  on  which,  for  more  than  a  century,  it  was  faithfully  administered. 
It  is  believed  that  during  all  this  period  no  one  was  ever  debarred  fi-om 
the  communion  of  saints,  who  was  regarded  as  a  sincere  disciple  of 
Christ,  and  that  no  one  was  admitted  to  any  office  in  the  Church,  or, 
if  admitted,  was  allowed  to  retain  his  standing,  who  dissented  in 
any  material  point  from  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  our 
standards."  [*] 

There  is  one  monstrous  assertion  relating  to  this  subject  involved  in 
one  of  the  passages  quoted  above  from  Mr.  Coit's  sermon,  which  we 
cannot  pass  unnoticed.  He  virtually  asserts  that  the  New  School  party 
were  cut  off  as  unfit  for  Christian  communion.  This  assertion  is  in 
the  very  fiice  of  the  solemn  declaration  of  the  Assembly,  that  they  had 
no  intention  of  affecting  either  the  ministerial  standing,  or  the  Church 
relations  of  any  one  in  the  four  synods.  They  declared  that  it  is  be- 
cause of  their  irregular  organization,  that  the  act  of  dissolution  was 
jiassed,  and  that  any  who  chose  might  organize  themselves  agreeably  to 
the  constitution,  and  thus  their  connection  with  the  Church  be  pre- 
served.    This  is  the  very  view  of  the  case  which  Mr.  Coit  gives,  in  the 

[*  See  par.  b  of  Pastoral  Letter  in  Digest  of  1873,  p.  306.] 


222  CHURCH  POLITY. 

body  of  liis  sermon,  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837.  "As  to  the 
clamour,"  he  says,  "  which  has  been  made  about '  cutting  off  five  hun- 
dred ministers  and  sixty  thousand  communicants'  by  the  Assembly's 
edict  of  1837,  the  truth  is,  not  one  person  was  cut  off,  unless  he  exscin- 
ded himself  upon  the  voluntary  principle  as  every  one  will  see  who  can 
read  and  will  look  at  the  enactment.  The  effect  of  the  act  was  to  abo- 
lish an  anomalous  ecclesiastical  connection  of  four  synods  with  the 
General  Assembly ;  a  connection  which  had  grown  up  out  of  a  tempo- 
rary missionary  arrangement,  (made  when  the  country  covered  by 
these  synods  was  mostly  a  wilderness,)  operating  most  perniciously  upon 
the  '  truth,  peace,  and  purity  of  the  churches,'  and  all  the  reasons  for 
which  had  long  ceased  to  exist."  This  representation  is  undoubtedly 
correct.  The  acts  of  1837  deposed  no  minister  and  excommunicated 
no  Church  member.  They  declared  no  man  and  no  set  of  men  unwor- 
thy of  Christian  communion.  It  would  indeed  have  been  a  monstrous 
iniquity  for  the  Assembly  to  excommunicate  thousands  of  Christians 
of  whom  they  knew  nothing,  and  who  had  been  neither  accused  nor 
convicted  of  any  offence.  The  imputation  of  any  such  purpose  to  the 
General  Assembly  is  a  gross  calumny  against  that  venerable  body. 

The  doctrine  so  plainly  taught  in  our  standards,  that  Christian  fel- 
lowship should  be  extended  to  all  who  exhibit  the  Christian  character, 
is  no  less  plainly  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  We  are  there  command- 
ed to  receive  all  those  whom  God  has  received.  In  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  it  is  in  various  forms  enjoined  on 
Christians  not  to  reject  any  who  live  on  Christian  principles.  True  re- 
ligion consists  in  "righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  he  who  in  these  things  serveth  Christ  is  acceptable  to  God  and  ap- 
proved of  men."  And  surely  those  Avho  are  acceptable  to  God  may 
well  be  acceptable  to  his  Church. 

There  is  no  duty  more  frequently  or  pointedly  enjoined  in  the  New 
Testament,  than  love  of  the  brethren.  It  is  made  the  badge  of  disciple- 
ship.  "  Hereby  "  says  Christ  "  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  dis- 
ciples, if  ye  have  love  one  to  another."  He  that  loveth  not  his  brother 
whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen. 
"We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life,  because  we  love 
the  brethren.  This  duty  involves  of  course  the  recognition  as  brethren 
of  all  those  who  are  really  such,  and  the  exercise  of  cordial  affection 
and  confidence  towards  them.  It  matters  not  by  what  name  they  may 
be  called,  whether  they  follow  with  us  or  not ;  if  they  bear  the  image 
of  Christ,  those  who  fail  to  recognize  and  honor  it,  fail  to  love  the 
brethren ;  they  reject  and  despise  those  whom  Christ  has  received,  and 
have  reason  to  consider  seriously  lest  Christ  should  say  unto  them.  In  as 
much  as  ye  did  it  not  to  one  of  the  least  of  these,  ye  did  it  not  unto  me. 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNION.  223 

It  would  avail  as  little  in  such  a  case  to  say,  We  did  not  regard  him 
as  a  brother ;  for  this  is  the  very  heart  of  the  offence.  If  a  man  is  a 
brother  and  gives  the  scriptural  evidence  of  the  fact,  not  to  see  and  re- 
cognize that  evidence  is  an  indication  of  that  very  state  of  mind  which 
is  so  offensive  to  our  Divine  Master.  Will  it  avail  us  in  that  day,  to 
say.  We  did  not  think  any  man  could  be  a  Christian  who  sang  Watts' 
Psalms,  or  who  did  not  wear  plain  clothes,  or  who  refused  to  give  a 
pledge  of  total  abstinence,  or  who  declined  to  join  an  abolition  society, 
or  who  denied  the  authority  of  the  Pope  or  of  prelates,  or  who  did  not 
adopt  the  same  standards  of  doctrine  as  we  did  ?  The  question  will  be, 
Did  you  refuse  to  recognize  those  as  Christians  who  were  really  such, 
and  who  gave  scriptural  evidence  of  their  being  the  disciples  of  Christ? 
What  that  evidence  is,  is  recorded  in  the  word  of  God,  and  every  man 
and  every  Church  must  apply  it  upon  their  own  responsibility.  One 
thing,  however,  is  plain,  viz. :  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  all  those 
whom  God  has  received ;  and  are  forbidden  to  require  more  for  com- 
munion with*  us,  than  he  requires  for  communion  with  him. 

There  is  a  prevalent  misconception  on  this  subject,  which  ought  to 
be  corrected.  It  is  said  that  by  communing  with  any  Church  we  re- 
cognize or  sanction  their  errors.  This  is  not  so.  We  recognize  them 
as  Christians,  and  nothing  more.  If  a  Presbyterian  commune  in  a  Con- 
gregational or  Episcopal  church,  no  man  regards  him  as  sanctioning 
their  distinctive  views  of  Church  government.  It  is  simply  in  their 
character  of  fellow  Christians  that  he  sits  with  them  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord,  to  which  they  have  a  common  right.  And  great  is  the  guilt  of 
those  who  refuse  that  right  to  any  to  whom  it  properly  belongs. 

Our  standards  tell  us  that  particular  Churches  "  may  err  in  making 
the  terms  of  communion  too  lax  or  too  narrow."  No  one,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, can  accuse  our  Church  of  going  to  either  extreme,  in  requiring, 
as  the  condition  of  Christian  communion,  nothing  more  and  nothing 
less  than  Christian  character.  And  no  individual  congregation  or 
presbytery  in  our  connection  has  a  right  to  alter  those  terms.  In  ap- 
plying the  rule  the  responsibility  rests  upon  the  officers  of  each  partic- 
ular church,  and  no  doubt  errors  in  this  matter  are  often  committed. 
The  Bible  contains  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  we  are 
bound  to  believe  all  the  Bible  teaches,  and  to  do  all  that  it  commands. 
But  perfect  faith  is  no  more  necessary  to  true  discipleship,  than  perfect 
conduct.  There  are  some  things  which,  if  a  man  does,  would  afford 
decisive  evidence  that  he  is  not  a  Christian ;  and  there  are  some  truths 
the  rejection  of  which  affords  no  less  decisive  evidence  of  the  same  fact; 
But  as  there  are  infirmities  of  temper  and  behaviour,  so  are  there  er- 
rors in  doctrine,  which  are  consistent  with  true  religion,  and  we  have 
no  more  right  to  exact  a  strict  conformity  to  our  own  belief  of  the  true 


224  CHURCH  POLITY. 

import  of  the  rule  of  faith,  than  we  have  to  demand  perfect  conformity 
to  the  rule  of  duty.  "  Those  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances," says  our  Directory,  "shall  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge 
and  piety."     Beyond  this  no  Church  session  has  a  right  to  go. 

We  have  ever  regarded  the  erroneous  views  and  practice  of  the 
Churches  in  relation  to  Christian  communion  as  one  of  the  greatest  eVils 
of  the  Christian  world.  It  is  not  the  existence  of  sects,  for  that  perhaps 
is  unavoidable,  but  it  is  the  refusal  to  recognise  as  brethren  those  who 
really  love  and  serve  Christ,  that  is  to  be  condemned  and  deplored.  It 
is  this  that  has  turned  the  ancient  eulogium:  See  how  these  Christians 
love  one  another,  into  the  condemning  testimony :  See  how  these  Chris- 
tians hate  one  another.  It  is  our  presumptuously  declaring  that  to  be 
common,  which  God  has  cleansed,  which  has  arrayed  the  different  parts 
of  the  Church  against  each  other.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  faithful 
adherence  to  the  truth,  without  anathematizing  all  who  differ  from  us. 
"We  may  guard  our  ministry  and  admit  none  to  the  office  of  teacher  in 
our  churches,  who  do  not  hold  that  system  of  doctrine  \fhich  we  be- 
lieve God  has  revealed,  and  which  cannot  be  rejected  in  any  of  its  parts 
without  evil  to  the  souls  of  men ;  but  we  may  still  recognise  as  Chris- 
tian brethren  all  who  hold  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

c.  Temperance   Question.  [*] 

[Booh  of  Discipline,  chap,  ii.,  sec.  3. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  483-492.] 

This  subject  came  up  on  the  review  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh.  It  appears  that  the  question,  "  Should  a  retailer  of  intox- 
icating drinks,  knowing  that  they  are  used  for  the  common  purposes 
of  beverage,  be  continued  in  the  full  privileges  of  the  Church,  and  cer- 
tified as  a  member  in  good  standing,"  was  referred  by  that  Synod  to  a 
committee,  who  made  a  report,  which  was  adopted,  and  is  to  the  effect 
that  no  member  of  the  Church  should  be  excluded  from  its  privileges, 
except  for  some  "offence;"  that  an  offence  "is  anything  in  the  princi- 
ples or  practice  of  a  church-member  which  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
God,  or  which,  if  it  be  not,  in  its  own  nature,  sinful,  may  tempt  others 
to  sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual  edification  ; "  that  the  practice  of  retailing 
intoxicating  drinks  need  not  be  pronounced  in  its  own  nature  sinful, 
but  that  it  certainly  tempts  others  to  sin,  and  therefore  is  an  "  offence  " 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Book.  But  is  it  such  an  offence  as  ought  to 
exclude  those  who  commit  it  from  the  privileges  of  the  Church?  In 
answer  to  this  question,  the  report  states  that  anything  which  would  be 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly,"  to£)ic  same ;  Princeton  Review, 
1843,  p.  461.] 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNION'.  225 

a  proper  ground  for  debarring  an  applicant  admission  to  the  Church 
ought  to  be  considered  a  sufficient  ground  of  excommunication  or  ex- 
clusion ;  that  anything  which  essentially  impairs  or  destroys  the  evi- 
dence of  Christian  character  is  a  bar  to  admission,  and  ought  to  be 
considered  a  ground  for  exclusion.  In  proof  that  the  practice  in  ques- 
tion does  destroy  the  credibility  of  a  Christian  profession,  it  is  argued 
that  "  the  man  who,  at  the  present  time,  is  ignorant  of  the  effect  of  the 
practice  referred  to,  in  tempting  others  to  sin  and  marring  their  spi- 
ritual edification,  must  be  criminally  regardless  of  what  is  going  on 
around  him.  And  he,  who,  knowing  this,  perseveres  in  the  practice, 
evinces  a  state  of  heart  directly  the  reverse  of  that  which  is  produced 
by  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation." 

That  this  is  not  establishing  a  new  term  of  communion  in  the 
Church,  the  report  argues,  because  the  old  and  acknowledged  condi- 
tion of  communion  is,  credible  evidence  of  Christian  character,  and  as 
the  practice  of  retailing  intoxicating  drinks  has  been  shown  to  vitiate 
that  evidence  and  to  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  privileges  of  Christian 
communion,  we  do  but  enforce  the  old  condition.  This  report  was 
"  ado2:)ted  by  the  Synod,  and  recommended  to  be  read  in  all  the  con- 
gregations within  its  bounds."  When  the  committee  of  the  General 
Assembly  reviewed  the  Minutes  of  that  body,  they  recommended  that 
they  should  be  approved,  with  the  exception  of  the  above  report,  be- 
cause it  virtually  made  "  the  retailing  of  intoxicating  drinks  a  test  of 
jiiety  and  a  term  of  membership  in  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

This  recommendation  gave  rise  to  a  protracted  discussion.  Dr.  Lord 
proposed  as  a  substitute  for  the  report  of  the  committee,  "That  the 
records  be  approved  except  so  far  as  they  seem  to  establish  a  general 
rule  in  regard  to  the  use  and  sale  of  ardent  spirits  as  a  beverage,  which 
use  and  sale  are  generally  to  be  decidedly  disaj)proved ;  but  each  case 
must  be  decided  in  view  of  all  the  attendant  circumstances  that  go  to 
modify  and  give  character  to  the  same."  Mr.  Breckinridge  moved  the 
following  as  a  substitute  for  Dr.  Lord's  proposition,  or  rather  for  the 
exception  in  the  report  of  the  committee  :  "  But  whereas  the  question 
has  been  made  before  this  Greneral  Assembly  whether  the  sale  of  intox- 
icating drinks,  in  all  cases,  shall  be  a  bar  to  communion  in  the  Pres- 
l)yterian  Cliurch,  therefore.  Resolved,  That  while  the  Assembly  rejoice 
in  the  success  of  the  temperance  reformation,  and  will  make  use  of  all 
lawful  means  to  promote  it,  they  cannot  sanction  any  new  terms  of  com- 
munion." This  resolution  was  rejected,  and  that  offered  by  Dr.  Lord 
was  finally  adopted. 

Did  we  not  know  how  liable  we  all  are  to  have  our  minds  clouded 
and  perverted  about  the  plainest  matters,  and  how  easily  the  evil  res- 
ident in  our  nature  mingles  with  everything  we  do,  we  should  be  sur- 
15 


226  CIIUECH  POLITY. 

prised  to  find  good  men  differing  about  such  a  subject  as  temperance, 
and  unholy  feelings  influencing  the  discussions  to  which  such  difference 
of  opinion  gives  rise.  We  make  this  latter  remark  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  recent  debates  in  the  General  Assembly,  for  we  rejoice  to  be- 
lieve that  throughout  the  long,  animated  and  exciting  discussion,  there 
■was  not,  as  one  of  the  audience  testifies  "  the  least  exhibition  of  rude 
deportment  or  unpleasant  feeling."  But  how  is  it  that  there  should  be 
such  diversity  of  opinion  even  in  the  Assembly  on  such  a  subject?  To 
what  does  this  diversity  relate?  Not  to  the  sinfulness  of  intemperance; 
not  to  the  prevalence  of  the  evil,  not  to  the  amount  of  crime,  degrada- 
tion and  misery,  of  which  it  is  the  fruitful  source,  not  to  the  duty  of  all 
men  to  endeavour  by  precept  and  example  to  oppose  its  progress,  not 
to  the  great  good  that  has  been  effected  by  temperance  societies,  not  to 
the  desirableness  of  continuing  and  extending  the  influence  of  the  re- 
formation already  so  hajipily  begun ;  but  mainly  to  certain  questions 
in  morals,  which  are  indeed  of  great  practical  importance.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  dissensions  among  good  men  on  such  subjects  as  temper- 
ance, slavery,  and  the  like,  arise  in  a  great  measure  from  the  want  of 
due  discrimination  somewhere  as  to  the  elementary  principles  of  ethics. 
By  elementary,  we  do  not  so  much  mean  obvious,  as  ultimate.  Men 
may  agree  that  a  thing  is  right,  but  differ  as  to  the  grounds  of  this 
judgment,  and  such  difference  will  of  necessity  produce  diversity  in  the 
reasons  by  which  they  enforce  the  duty,  the  means  they  employ  to  car- 
ry out  their  views,  and  the  spirit  which  animates  their  endeavours.  It 
makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world,  whether  a  thing  is  wrong  in  it- 
self, or  for  reasons  extraneous  to  its  own  nature.  If  it  is  wrong  in  it- 
self, it  is  always  wrong;  it  is  always  the  ground  of  reproach  or  cen- 
sure; and  it  should  be  opposed  in  a  way  entirely  inadmissible  on  the 
supposition  that  it  is,  in  its  own  nature,  a  matter  of  indifference.  It  is 
evident  that  it  is  the  prevalent  doctrine  of  our  Temperance  Socie- 
ties, and  of  our  self-called  temperance  men,  that  the  use  and  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage  is  in  itself  an  immorality.  As  to 
this  point  there  can  be  no  higher  authority  than  the  National  Temper- 
ance Convention  held  at  Saratoga,  July,  1841,  who  declared,  "'That  the 
tendency  of  all  intoxicating  drinks  to  derange  the  bodily  functions,  to 
lead  to  drunkenness,  to  harden  the  heart,  sear  the  conscience,  destroy 
domestic  peace,  excite  to  the  commission  of  crime,  waste  human  life, 
and  destroy  souls;  and  the  rebukes  and  warnings  of  God  in  his  word 
in  relation  to  them,  in  connection  with  every  law  of  self-preservation 
and  of  love,  imposed  upon  all  men  a  solemn  moral  obligation  to  cease 
forever  from  their  manufacture,  sale  and  use,  as  a  beverage,  and  so 
unitedly  call  upon  us  as  men  and  Christians,  not  to  pause  in  our  work 
until  such  manufacture,  sale  and  use,  shall  be  universally  abandoned." 


TERMS  OF  COMMUNION.  227 

This  declaration  of  the  immorality  of  the  manufacture,  sale  and  use  of 
all  intoxicating  drinks  as  a  beverage,  being  founded,  not  on  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  any  time  or  place,  but  on  the  inherent  nature 
and  tendency  of  such  drinks,  is  a  declaration  that  their  sale  and  use 
are,  and  always  have  been  sinful.  And  as  it  is  a  fact,  just  as  clear 
as  any  other  fact  contained  in  the  Scripture,  that  God  and  Christ  did 
not  prohibit,  but  allowed  the  use  of  such  drinks,  we  cannot  hesitate  to 
say  that  the  above  resolution  is  infidel  in  its  spirit  and  tendency,  how- 
ever many  good  men  may  have  been  cajoled  or  driven  into  the  sin  of 
giving  it  their  sanction.  It  has  produced,  therefore,  its  legitimate  ef- 
fects in  vitiating  the  arguments,  the  measures,  and,  to  a  lamentable 
extent,  the  spirit  of  the  Temperance  Society.  It  has  led  to  a  disre- 
gard of  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God,  to  a  shameful  perversion  of 
its  meaning,  to  shocking  irreverence  in  the  manner  of  speaking  of  our 
blessed  "Redeemer.  It  has  in  all  these  and  other  ways  tended  to  un- 
dermine the  foundations  of  religion,  and  has  given,  in  many  places,  an 
infidel  character  to  the  whole  temperance  movement.  It  has  just  as 
necessarily  led  to  coercive  measures  in  the  promotion  of  the  object 
aimed  at,  invoking  the  aid  of  Church  courts  and  Church  censures.  It 
has  produced  a  spirit  of  denunciation  and  censoriousness.  Good  men 
are  represented  as  bad  men,  for  no  other  reason  than  a  denial  of  the 
falsa  principle  above  stated,  and  for  their  opposition  to  the  arguments 
by  which  it  is  sustained.  We  refer,  as  a  single  example,  to  the  case 
of  Dr.  Maclean,  one  of  the  most  disinterested  of  men,  a  man  who  has 
more  moral  worth  than  would  serve  for  an  outfit  for  a  whole  genera- 
tion of  such  men  as  ignorantly  traduce  him ;  a  man,  who  not  only 
practices  upon  the  principles  of  total  abstinence,  but  has  over  and 
again  signed  pledges  to  that  effect,  who  is  yet  constantly  more  or  less 
defamed,  because  he  refuses  to  submit  his  judgment  and  conscience  to 
this  new  and  self-created  tribunal  of  moral  principle  and  conduct. 
Just  so  long  and  so  far  as  the  false  doctrine  above  stated,  is  maintained 
by  our  Temperance  Societies,  will  it  be  the  duty  of  the  friends  of  reli- 
gion and  of  temperance  itself,  at  whatever  cost  to  themselves,  to  bear 
their  testimony  against  it,  and  resist  all  measures  designed  to  establish 
and  enforce  it. 

The  New  York  Observer  says,  in  reference  to  the  discussions  in  the 
Assembly,  that  "  through  the  whole  progress  of  the  debate  not  a  single 
expression  was  heard  that  could  be  distorted  by  the  most  fastidious  ear 
into  a  support  of  that  dogma  of  modern  ultraism,  which  has  so  often 
jeoparded  the  temperance  reform ;  that  'it  is  a  sin  perse  to  use  or 
sell  intoxicating  drinks.'  All  appeared  satisfied,  and  many  expressly 
declared  their  willingness  to  rest  the  cause  on  the  broad  ground  of  ex- 
pediency so  clearly  set  forth  by  St.  Paul,  in  regard  to  both  *  meat  and 


228  CHURCH  POLITY. 

wine,  wliich  they  considered  as  a  firm  and  ample  foundation  for  the 
glorious  superstructure."  Our  brethren  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh 
also,  state  that  they  do  not  affirm  the  practice  of  retailing  intoxicating 
drinks,  to  be  in  its  own  nature  sinful.  We  fear,  however,  there  is 
often  a  great  mistake  made  as  to  the  proper  place  of  expediency,  as  it 
is  called,  in  questions  of  duty.  The  principle  which  the  apostle  kys 
down,  Rom.  xiv.  ch.  and  1  Cor.  viii.  ch.,  is,  that  it  is  wrong  for  us  to 
make  such  use  of  our  liberty,  in  things  indifferent,  as  to  lead  our 
brethren  into  sin.  This  is  the  general  principle,  but  it  is  subject  to  the 
important  limitation  that  this  comijliance  with  either  the  scruples  or 
weakness  of  others,  must  be  "for  their  good  to  edification.  If  it 
would  sanction  any  false  doctrine,  or  tend  to  establish  any  false  prin- 
ciple of  duty,  the  compliance  would  itself  be  wrong ;  because  it  is  far 
more  important,  and  far  more  useful  for  others,  that  the  truth  should 
be  kept  pure  than  that  those  who  are  weak  or  ignorant  should  not  be 
offended.  Paul's  precept  and  examj)le,  as  well  as  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  impose  this  limitation  on  the  j^rinciple  in  question.  To  avoid 
giving  offence,  and  to  save  the  Jews  from  the  sin  of  rejecting  the  gos- 
pel, without  a  hearing,  he  circumcised  Timothy ;  but  when  there  was 
danger  that  compliance  would  sanction  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
works,  he  refused  to  circumcise  Titus.  Christ  would  not  comply  with 
the  conscientious  scruples  of  the  men  of  his  generation,  but  consented 
to  be  called  a  Sabbath-breaker  and  a  wine-bibber,  because  he  saw  their 
good  and  the  cause  of  truth  required  it.  It  was  in  the  same  spirit  of 
enlightened  Christian  ethics  that  Luther  urged  his  followers  to  observe 
certain  religious  days,  adding,  however,  if  any  man  says  you  must  do 
it,  then  go  to  your  ordinary  work  as  hard  as  you  can. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  any  rule  of  duty  founded  on  expediency 
must  be  variable.  If  I  am  bound  to  abstain  from  certain  things  only 
because  the  use  of  them  would  do  my  brethren  harm,  the  obligation 
exists  only  when  his  real  good  would  be  promoted  by  my  abstinence. 
If  the  obligation  arises  from  circumstances,  it  must  vary  with  circum- 
stances. If  it  was  Paul's  duty  at  Jerusalem  to  have  his  head  shaved 
and  keep  the  law,  it  was  his  duty  at  Antioch  to  disregard  the  law  and 
to  eat  with  the  Gentiles.  If  it  was  his  duty  under  one  set  of  circum- 
stances to  circumcise  Timothy,  it  was  his  duty  under  another  to  refuse 
to  circumcise  Titus.  If  it  was  his  duty  in  Corinth  to  abstain  from 
eating  meat,  it  was  his  duty  among  the  Essenes,  who  made  religion  to 
consist  in  such  matters,  to  eat  it.  Thus  we  doubt  not,  in  our  day,  it  is 
a  duty  in  many  parts  of  the  country  to  practice  on  the  principles  of 
total  abstinence ;  in  others,  no  such  obligation  may  exist ;  and  we  sus- 
pect in  others  it  is  an  imperative  duty  openly  to  refuse  to  do  it.  If  in 
any  place  such  abstinence  would  countenance  false  doctrines,  or  false 


TERMS  OF  C0MMUNI0:N'.  229 

principles  of  morals,  or  sanction  infidel  sentiments,  or  add  weight  to 
infidel  measures,  we  ought  not  to  give  place  by  subjection,  no  not  for 
an  hour.  Let  real  love  to  our  brethren,  guided  by  the  word  of  God, 
direct  our  conduct,  and  though  we  may  not  all  act  in  the  same  way,  we 
shall  all  act  right. 

It  follows  also,  from  the  very  nature  of  expediency,  that  every  man 
must  be  allowed  to  decide  and  act  for  himself  He  is  not  to  subject 
his  conscience  or  conduct  to  the  judgment  of  others  in  such  cases.  If 
a  thing  be  indifferent  in  its  own  nature,  if  God  has  neither  commanded 
nor  forbidden  the  use  of  it,  then  I  must  decide  for  myself  Avhether  it  is 
right  to  use  it  or  not.  It  is  a  question  which  no  man  can  decide  for 
me,  and  which  depends  on  whether  most  good  will  result  from  using 
or  not  using  the  thing  in  question  ;  a  point  often  exceedingly  difficult, 
if  not  imjjossible  with  any  confidence,  to  decide.  This  is  the  very 
principle  which  Paul  so  strenuously  asserted.  While  he  said  it  was 
wrong  to  eat  meat  with  ofience  (i.  e.,  so  as  to  cause  others  to  sin),  he  said 
also,  Let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth.  Who 
art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant,  to  his  own  master  he 
standeth  or  falleth  ?  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth  God  thanks, 
and  he  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord  he  eateth  not,  and  giveth  God 
thanks. 

It  is  only  stating  what  has  already  been  said  in  another  form,  to  say 
that  expediency  never  can  be  the  ground  of  any  general  and  peremptory  ■ 
rule  of  duty  as  to  any  specific  thing.  The  general  principle  l3  plain 
and  admitted,  but  the  application  varies  with  every  man's  circum- 
stances, and  must  be  left  to  each  man's  conscience.  All  those  general 
deglarations  therefore,  of  the  duty  of  total  abstinence,  from  the  use  of 
intoxicating  drinks,  if  they  do  not  rest  on  the  false  doctrine,  that  such 
use  is  in  its  own  nature  sinful,  have  no  foundation  at  all.  Expediency 
can  only  sustain  the  declaration  that  the  use  is  wrong  in  certain  cir- 
cumstances ;  for  if  it  is  wrong  under  all  circumstances,  it  is  wrong  in 
its  own  nature.  Brethren  evidently  deceive  themselves.  They  say 
they  take  the  ground  of  expediency  and  then  proceed  to  make  declara- 
tions and  lay  down  rules  which  can  have  no  other  foundation  than  the 
inherent  evil  nature  of  the  thing  denounced — Would  Paul  have  laid 
down  the  general  proposition,  that  eating  meat  offered  to  idols  was  "  an 
offence,"  which  should  exclude  a  man  from  the  communion  of  the 
Church  ?  Does  he  not  say  the  very  reverse,  and  forbid  our  making 
the  use  or  disuse  of  any  thing  indifferent  in  its  own  nature,  a  condition 
of  Christian  communion  ?  Let  brethren  ponder  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  we  are  persuaded  they  will  feel  that 
all  such  general  rules  as  that  under  discussion  in  the  Assembly  are 


230  CHUE(]H  POLITY. 

anti-scriptural,  and  subversive  of  the  true  principles  of  morals,  as  well 
as  of  Christian  liberty  and  love.  No  one  doubts  that  a  man  may  make 
such  a  use  of  his  liberty,  as  to  dress,  as  to  manner  of  living,  as  to  eat- 
ing or  drinking,  as  shall  clearly  show  he  has  not  a  Christian  sj^irit,  and 
for  such  offence  he  may  be  dealt  with  as  the  case  deserves ;  but  this  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  laying  down  the  general  rule  that  every 
man  Avho  dresses  or  lives  in  a  certain  way,  or  who  eats  or  drinks  cer- 
tain things,  shall  be  excluded  from  the  Church.  How  can  any  one  be- 
lieve that  every  man  that  buys  and  sells  wine,  that  has  a  vineyard,  or 
who  turns  his  aj)ples  into  cider  is,  the  world  over  ipso  facto,  proved  not 
to  be  a  Christian  ?  Yet  this  is  the  length  to  M'hich  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  minute  before  the  Assembly  must  of  necessity  go.  A  man 
may  use  wine  under  circumstances  which  prove  that  he  is  a  bad  man  ; 
but  this  does  not  prove  that  the  use  of  wine  shows  him  to  be  wicked. 
He  may  retail  intoxicating  drinks  in  a  way  that  shows  he  is  not  a  Chris- 
tian, but  this  does  not  prove  that  the  act  of  retailing  them  vitiates  the 
evidence  of  his  Christian  character.  If  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  itself  a  bar  to 
Christian  communion.  - 

It  seems  strange  to  us,  that  any  one  should  contend  that  making  the 
use  or  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  as  a  beverage,  is  in  itself  a  proof  that 
a  man  is  not  a  Christian,  is  not  adopting  "  a  new  term  of  communion.'' 
If  you  establish  a  new  test  of  piety,  you  certainly  thereby  establish  a 
new  term  of  communion.  If  the  fact  that  a  man  holds  slaves,  or  that 
he  sings  Watts'  psalms,  or  that  he  uses  wine,  is  made  to  prove  he  is  not 
a  pious  man,  do  you  not,  in  the  common  and  correct  sense  of  the  terms, 
mak-e  those  things  conditions  of  union  with  the  Church  ?  And  is  it  not 
plain  that  by  so  doing  you  violate  the  Scriptures,  place  yourself  above 
the  Master,  and  undertake  to  prescribe  rules  for  his  house  on  your  own 
authority  and  contrary  to  his  will  ? 

One  of  the  greatest  evils  of  these  extremes,  is  that  it  forces  those  who 
oppose  them  into  a  false  position.  Because  they  oppose  an  erroneous 
and  injurious  method  of  promoting  temperance,  they  are  looked  upon 
as  opposing  temperance  itself;  they  are  said  to  take  part  with  the 
drunkard,  and  to  stand  in  the  way  of  all  that  is  good.  Did  Christ  fa- 
vour the  disregard  of  the  Sabbath,  because  he  exposed- the  error  of  the 
pharisees  ?  Did  he  promote  intemperance,  because  he  resisted  the  asce- 
tic doctrines  of  some  of  the  Jews?  So  his  enemies  said,  but  was  it  true? 
If  evil  flows  from  these  discussions  about  temperance,  whose  fault  is  it  ? 
Are  they  to  blame  who  oppose  false  principles,  or  they  who  advance 
them  ?  Reproach  on  either  side  is  nugatory.  The  simple  question  is, 
what  is  true  and  right  ?  May  we  not  hope  that  brethren  who  agree  in 
thinking  not  only  that  intemperance  is  a  great  sin,  but  that  it  is  a  siu 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNION.  231 

which  calls  for  special  watchfulness  and  zealous  opposition  ;  will  agree 
as  to  the  principles  on  which  that  opposition  is  to  be  conducted  ?  We 
may  be  certain  that  if  the  principle  on  which  the  temperance  reforma- 
tion is  made  to  rest,  is  not  sound,  the  whole  effort  will  come  to  a  disas- 
trous end.  Those  therefore  are  the  best  friends  of  temperance,  who 
contend  for  the  truth. 

d.  Marriage  Question.  [*] 

{Directory  for  Worship,  chap,  xi.,  sec.  iii. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  688.] 

Overtures  were  received  from  the  Synods  of  New  Jersey  and  Alaba- 
ma, and  from  the  Presbyteries  of  Troy,  New  York,  West  Lexington 
and  from  the  Western  District,  requesting  the  Assembly  to  send  down 
to  the  Presbyteries,  the  question,  whether  the  Confession  of  Faith 
should  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  last  clause  of  the  4th  section  of 
the  24th  chap.,  which  says,  "  The  man  may  not  marry  any  of  his  wife's 
kindred  nearer  in  blood  than  he  may  of  his  own,  nor  the  woman  of  her 
husband's  kindred,  nearer  :  .  blood  than  of  her  own." 

These  overtures  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures,  who  re- 
ported, May  22,  in  favour  cf  sending  down  the  proposed  question.  Two  of  the  com- 
mittee, Dr.  J.  C.  Lord  and  Rev.  Hiram  Chamberlain,  dissented  from  this  report, 
and  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  declaring  any  such  reference  to  the 
presbyteries  inexpedient.  When  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  committee  came 
up.  May  26,  Dr.  Hoge,  moved  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table;  on  the 
ground  that  the  consideration  of  it  would  lead  to  a  long  and  unprofitable  discus- 
sion of  the  merits  of  the  case.  This  motion  prevailed  ;  yeas  83  ;  nays  55.  On  the 
afternoon  of  May  29th,  Dr.  Leland,  moved  to  take  up  the  subject ;  urging  that  it 
was  not  proper  to  neglect  the  request  of  so  many  of  the  lower  judicatories.  He 
added  that  although  he  had  always  been  opposed  to  such  marriages,  he  was  more 
opposed  to  refusing  to  apply,  in  such  cases,  to  the  constitutional  source  of  power 
for  a  decision.  Dr.  Leland's  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  56  to  49.  The  mo- 
tion was  then  advocated  by  Dr.  Maclean,  on  the  ground  that  the  request  was  made 
by  whole  synods  and  presbyteries;  that  there  was  so  much  diversity  of  opinion  in 
the  Church  on  the  subject,  that  a  reference  to  the  presbyteries  was  the  only  way 
by  which  the  question  could  be  settled ;  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  ought  not  to 
contain  anything  which  hundreds  of  our  ministers  and  thousands  of  our  Church 
members,  with  whom  the  speaker  fully  sympathized,  believed  unauthorized  by 
the  word  of  God :  that  the  other  Churches  by  which  we  are  surrounded,  the  laws 
of  the  land,  and  the  general  sentiment  of  the  country  were  in  favour  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  marriages  which  our  book  condemns. 

Dr.  Hoge  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  spoke  against  the  motion,  and  the  former 
moved  that  the  whole  subject  should  be  referred  to  a  committee  of  three,  to  report 
an  amended  form  of  the  section  to  be  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries.  A  motion, 
however,  was  made  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table,  which  prevailed:    yeas 

[*  From  Article  on  "  Tlie  General  Assembly";  topic  same;  Princeton  Review, 
1843,  p.  450.] 


232  CHUECH  POLITY. 

68,  nays  63.  On  the  following  day,  Dr.  Hoge  moved  that  the  subject  be  again  ta- 
ken up,  with  a  view  to  appoint  a  committee  to  report  on  the  subject  to  the  next 
Assembly.  He  said  he  made  this  motion  not  because  he  wished  any  change  in 
this  article  in  the  Confession,  which  he  believed  to  be,  as  it  now  stands,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  word  of  God,  but  simply  because  some  of  the  brethren  think  we  have 
not  treated  them  and  the  judicatories  of  the  Church  fairly  in  the  disposition  of  the 
subject  which  we  have  made.  The  motion  to  take  the  subject  up  was  carried  •.•xjeas 
61,  nays  54;  and  then  without  debate  or  division,  it  was  voted  to  refer  it  to  a  com- 
mittee of  five  to  report  to  the  next  Assembly.  It  was  at  first  determined  to  ap- 
point this  committee  by  ballot;  but  subsequently,  on  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Breckinridge,  the  following  gentlemen  were  appointed,  viz.:  Messrs.  Hoge, 
Spring,  Leiand,  Hodge  and  N.  L.  Kice. 

That  this  is  a  difficult  and  complicated  subject,  must,  on  all  hands, 
be  admitted.  There  are  three  very  distinct  questions  in  relation  to  it, 
which  ought  not  to  be  confounded.  1,  Is  the  doctrine  now  taught  on 
this  point  in  our  Confession  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God? 
2.  If  so,  ought  the  article  in  question  to  be  made  a  term  of  Christian 
and  ministerial  communion  ?  3.  If  not,  is  the  striking  out  of  the 
clause  proposed  to  be  erased,  the  right  remedy  for  the  difficulty? 

As  to  the  first  of  these  j^oints  there  are  avowedly  three  opinions  in 
the  Church.  The  one  that  the  Confession  as  it  now  stands  is  in  its 
strictest  sense  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  and  therefore  that 
the  marriages  in  question  are  in  such  a  sense  unlawful  as  to  be  invalid 
in  the  sight  of  God.  Separation  of  the  parties,  according  to  this  view,  is 
in  all  cases  an  indispensable  requisite  for  admission  to  the  privileges  of 
the  Church.  The  second  opinion  is,  that  although  the  marriages  in 
question  are  unlawful,  i.  e.  contrary  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, they  are  not,  in  all  cases  (i.  e.  the  remotest  degrees  of  kindred 
forbidden  in  our  Book,)  invalid.  The  separation  of  the  parties  in  such 
cases,  so  far  from  being  a  duty  would  be,  according  to  this  view,  a  sin. 
This  view  of  the  subject  we  believe  to  be  far  more  prevalent  in  the 
Church  than  the  other.  Many  brethren  who  are  the  most  strenuous  in 
their  support  of  the  Book,  are  disposed  to  leave  the  parties  already 
living  in  such  connections,  unmolested  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  Church 
privileges.  But  this  they  could  not  do,  if  they  believed  their  marriages 
to  be  invalid.  This  second  opinion  is  founded  on  the  obvious  principle 
of  religious  ethics  that  although,  in  many  cases,  it  may  be  wrong  to 
enter  into  certain  engagements,  yet  the  engagement,  when  formed,  is 
binding.  That  this  is  a  sound  principle  cannot  be  doubted,  and 
admits,  were  it  necessary,  of  abundant  illustration.  It  was  against  the 
law  of  God  for  the  ancient  Israelites  to  form  any  treaties  with  the 
heathen ;  and  yet,  in  many  cases,  such  treaties  when  formed  were 
morally  binding.  It  is  contrary  to  the  divine  will  for  any  man  to 
violate  the  law  of  the  land,  and  yet,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  mu- 


TERMS  OF  COMMUNION.  233 

nicipal  law  regulating  marriage,  may  be  violated  without  rendering 
the  contract  morally  void.  In  England,  a  few  years  ago,  the  law  for- 
bade any  man  but  a  minister  of  the  Established  Church  to  solemnize 
marriage ;  the  ceremony  could  be  legally  performed  only  at  certain 
places,  and  during  certain  hours  of  the  day.  Yet  no  one  doubts  that 
a  marriage  solemnized  by  a  Romish  priest,  or  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
or  out  of  canonical  hours,  was  valid  and  binding  in  the  sight  of  God, 
though  in  one  sense  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  by  being  contrary  to 
the  law  of  the  land.  But  to  take  a  case  nearer  to  the  point,  God  for- 
bids in  his  word  believers  and  unbelievers  to  be  unequally  yoked  to- 
gether. It  is  laid  down  as  a  principle  meant  to  be  conservative  of  the 
peace  and  religious  character  of  families,  that  the  people  of  God 
should  not  intermarry  with  his  enemies.  Should  a  minister  of  the 
gospel  marry  a  gay,  worldly  woman,  he  would  certainly  violate  this 
principle ;  and  still  more  obviously  would  he  act  contrary  to  the  divine 
law,  were  he  to  many  a  skeptic  or  a  heathen.  But  in  no  one  of  these 
cases  would  the  marriage  be  invalid.  In  like  manner,  God  has  laid 
down  the  general  rule  that  a  man  should  not  marry  his  near  kindred. 
This  law  cannot  be  violated  with  impunity ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
every  marriage  inconsistent  with  it  should  be  dissolved.  About  the 
principle  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  whether  it  is  applicable  to  the  case 
of  marriage,  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  general  law  of  mar- 
riage. If  that  law  is  a  moral  one,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term, 
then  no  engagement  inconsistent  with  its  provisions  can  be  binding, 
any  more  than  a  man  can  bind  himself  to  commit  murder.  But  if  it 
be  a  positive  law,  or  only  in  a  secondary  sense  moral,  and  therefore 
dispensable,  then  the  principle  is  applicable,  in  all  cases  where  the 
sacred  obligation  of  the  marriage  contract  is  more  obligatory  than  the 
positive  law  with  which  it  is  in  conflict.  If  a  man  is  in  such  circum- 
stances that  he  cannot  comply  with  both  of  two  laws,  it  is  a  jolain  prin- 
ciple that  the  weaker  law  gives  way,  or  ceases  to  be  binding.  If  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath  conflicts  with  the  claims  of  mercy,  it  is  in  that  case 
no  longer  obligatory;  for  God  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.  It  is 
not  our  purpose  at  present  to  argue  any  thing ;  but  merely  to  state 
what  are  the  opinions  prevailing  in  the  Church  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  certainly  true  that  while  some  brethren  think  all  mar- 
riages forbidden  in  our  Confession  are  not  only  unlawful,  but  invalid  ; 
a  much  larger  number,  while  they  believe  them  to  be  unlawful,  i.  e., 
inconsistent  with  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures  on  the  subject, 
believe  them  to  be,  in  the  case  referred  to,  valid  and  binding. 

A  third  opinion  is  that  the  law,  as  it  now  stands,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  word  of  God,  forbidding  what  that  word,  and  the  laws  of  al- 
most all  our  states,  do  not  prohibit.     How  large  this  class  of  brethren 


234  CHUECH  POLITY. 

is  we  cannot  tell.  In  the  northern  portion  of  the  Church,  they  prob- 
ably constitute  a  great  majority ;  in  the  southern  and  western  portions 
a  minority. 

The  second  question  is,  "Whether  the  law  forbidding  a  man  to  marry 
any  of  his  wife's  kindred  nearer  in  blood  than  he  may  of  his  own, 
ought  to  be  made  a  term  of  ministerial  and  Christian  communion? 
This  is  a  grave  question.  It  seems  plain  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
make  every  truth  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  a  term  of  communion. 
This  is  contrary  to  the  express  command  of  the  apostle,  and  would  ren- 
der the  unity  of  the  Church  impracticable.  It  is  only  those  things 
which  are  clearly  revealed,  and  which  are  of  such  moment  that  minis- 
ters cannot  differ  about  them  and  be  qualified  for  the  office  of  preachers 
in  the  same  Church,  that  should  be  included  in  the  terms  of  ministerial 
communion  ;  and  only  those  about  which  Christians  cannot  safely  dif- 
fer, that  should  be  embraced  in  the  terms  of  Christian  communion. 
Now  it  is  said,  we  should  be  very  sure  that  a  thing  is  clearly  revealed 
before  we  can  make  the  disbelief  of  it,  the  ground  of  exclusion  from  the 
Church.  The  fact  that  there  is  such  an  avowed  diversity  of  opinion  on 
the  subject  in  question,  is  one  of  the  arguments  urged  against  the  clause 
complained  of  being  retained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith. 

Again,  it  is  urged  against  the  rule  that  it  never  was,  and  practically 
it  cannot  be  uniformly  enforced.  Although  in  one  part  of  the  Church 
it  has  been  carried  into  effect,  in  another  it  has  been  sufl^ered  to  lie  dor- 
mant. So  that  we  have,  and  ever  have  had,  in  our  Churches,  and  at 
times  in  our  eldership  and  ministry,  men  in  good  standing,  who  have 
contracted  marriages  in  violation  of  this  rule.  But  even  this  is  not  the 
greatest  difficulty.  Such  is  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  Church  on  this 
subject  that  uniformity  cannot  be  attained.  If  it  would  violate  the 
conscience  of  a  northern  presbytery  to  discipline  a  brother  for  such  a 
marriage,  it  would  violate  the  conscience  of  many  of  our  presbyteries  in 
the  south,  to  pass  the  matter  in  silence.  Where  the  sentiment  of  the 
Cliurch  is  against  the  marriage,  it  cannot  be  overlooked  ;  Avhere  the  op- 
posite sentiment  prevails  it  cannot  be  censured.  We  have  heard  of  a 
minister  who  had  scarcely  more  than  twelve  members  of  a  large  con- 
gregation who  would  consent  to  hear  him  preach,  after  his  marriage 
with  the  sister  of  his  deceased  wife ;  and  when  he  attempted  to  admin- 
ister the  Lord's  Supper,  all  the  elders  declined  serving.  Such  a  man 
is  as  it  were  excluded  from  the  ministry  by  public  sentiment,  before 
any  Church  censure  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  him.  Now  what  is 
to  be  done  ?  This  is  a  practical  question.  Shall  we  agree  to  differ  ? 
or  must  we  separate  on  this  point  ? 

This  introduces  the  third  question.  Is  the  erasure  of  the  clause  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out,  the  proper  remedy  for  the  difficulty  ? 


TEEMS  OF  COMMUNION.  235 

Practically  it  certainly  will  not  reach  it ;  for  as  tlie  Book  will  still 
condemn  marriages  within  the  degrees  prohibited  in  the  Word  of  God, 
all  those  sessions  and  presbyteries  who  think  the  marriage  in  question 
included  in  the  prohibition,  will  feel  not  only  authorized,  but  required 
to  proceed  just  as  if  the  Book  were  left  unaltered.  We  shall  have  just 
the  same  diversity  of  opinion  and  practice  without  the  clause  that  we 
have  with  it.  We  have  heard  it  suggested  that  the  best  plan  would  be 
to  leave  the  Book  as  it  is ;  and  allow  the  several  sessions  and  presby- 
teries (as  they  have  ever  been  allowed,)  to  pursue  their  own  course  in 
the  matter,  the  General  Assembly  not  interfering  to  coerce  obedience 
to  the  rule  where  the  lower  court  does  not  feel  called  upon  to  enforce 
it ;  and  acting  only  when  a  case  is  made  and  brought  up  by  appeal 
from  some  lower  judicatory.  This  is  substantially  the  very  course  the 
Church  has  been  pursuing  the  last  fifty  years ;  and  it  is  the  course  we 
doubt  not,  in  practice,  that  she  will  have  to  pursue  for  many  years  to 
come.  This  course  is  attended  with  no  real  hardship ;  because  it  ad- 
mits of  the  free  exercise  of  the  different  opinions  which  exist  in  the 
Church  on  the  subject.  If  a  man  is  a  member  of  a  session  or  presbytery 
who  are  known  to  believe  the  Word  of  God  condemns  such  marriages, 
he  acts  with  his  eyes  open  when  he  contracts  them.  He  has  no  right 
to  force  his  brethren  to  tolerate  what  they  think  wrong ;  or  to  insist 
upon  being  a  member  of  a  body  against  the  judgment  and  conscience 
of  all  his  fellow  members.  It  may  be  said  that  it  is  an  anomalous  state 
for  a  Church  to  be  in ;  one  presbytery  suspending  from  his  office  a  min- 
ister for  an  act  which  another  presbytery  passes  without  censure.  This 
is  very  true.  But  it  is,  and  for  fifty  years  or  more,  has  been  the  actual 
state  of  the  Church.  And  how  can  you  help  it  ?  You  cannot  force  all 
to  think  alike,  and  therefore  you  cannot  make  all  act  alike.  You  must 
either  allow  this  diversity  of  opinion  and  practice,  or  you  must  split  the 
Church.  Believing  as  we  do  that  a  decided  majority  of  the  Church  is 
in  favour  of  the  Book,  substantially  as  it  now  stands,  we  suspect  the 
course  which  would  give  the  most  general  satisfaction  is  the  one  just 
suggested.  Leave  the  Book  unaltered,  and  leave  the  lower  courts  to 
act  under  it  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 

Another  strong  objection  against  striking  out  the  clause  under  con- 
sideration, is  that  it  will  leave  the  section  in  a  state  at  once  ambiguous 
and  unsatisfactory.  It  will  be  ambiguous  because  it  will  then  say 
"marriage  ought  not  to  be  within  the  degrees  of  consanguinity  or  affi- 
nity, forbidden  in  the  word."  But  there  are  not  a  few  in  our  Church 
who  say  there  is  no  law  relating  to  this  subject  in  the  Bible.  Others 
say  that  although  the  18th  chapter  of  Leviticus  relates  to  marriage,  it 
is  no  longer  binding.  Others  say  it  is  binding  as  far  as  the  specified 
cases  go,  but  no  further.     Others  say  it  is  binding  not  only  as  to  the 


236  CHURCH  POLITY. 

specified  cases,  but  as  to  tlie  degrees  of  which  those  cases  are  instances. 
Here  are  no  less  than  four  different  views  prevailing  more  or  less  in 
the  Church,  and  the  Confession,  if  altered  in  the  manner  proposed,  de- 
cides nothing  respecting  them,  except  indeed,  by  implication  that  some 
degrees  are  prohibited  in  the  Scriptures.  If  it  were  said,  we  must 
teach  no  doctrine  inconsistent  with  what  is  taught  in  the  word  concern- 
ing original  sin,  it  would  be  a  very  unfit  clause  for  a  confession  of  faith 
or  bond  of  union  among  brethren. 

The  section  would  not  only  be  ambiguous,  but  it  would  be  satisfac- 
tory to  no  portion  of  the  Church.  It  would  declare  that  such  mar- 
riages can  never  be  made  lawful  by  any  law  of  man  or  consent  of  par- 
ties, so  as  those  persons  may  live  together  as  man  and  wife.  This  is 
the  clause  which  after  all  gives  most  trouble,  and  which  the  proposed 
alteration  leaves  in  full  force,  applying  to  each  and  every  case  prohib- 
ited in  the  word.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  very 
large  number  of  our  ministers  and  elders  do  not  believe  that  all  these 
marriages,  though  unlawful,  are  invalid.  To  them  therefore,  as  well 
as  to  those  who  take  more  liberal  ground  on  the  whole  subject,  the 
section  as  it  would  stand,  will  be  altogether  unsatisfactory. 

The  mere  striking  out  of  the  last  section,  therefore,  appears  to  us  to 
be  the  worst  of  all  expedients.  It  cannot  prevent  the  diversity  of  opin- 
ion and  practice  that  now  prevails ;  it  would  render  the  law  in  the 
highest  degree  ambiguous ;  and  leave  it  as  unsatisfactory  to  a  large 
part  of  the  Church  as  it  is  at  present.  Whether  the  committee  who 
have  it  in  charge  to  report  on  this  subject  to  the  next  Assembly,  will 
be  able  to  prepare  anything  to  meet  all  these  conflicting  views,  remains 
to  be  seen.  Dr.  Hoge,  we  learn  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Assem- 
bly, is  in  favour  of  a  modified  form  of  the  whole  section,  which,  if  we 
are  correctly  informed,  differs  from  the  present,  mainly  in  this,  that  it 
does  not  pronounce  all  these  marriages  to  be  invalid,  which  is  the  com- 
mon understanding  of  the  Book  as  it  now  stands.  A  section  which 
should  affirm  the  continued  obligation  of  the  law  of  marriage,  as  con- 
tained in  the  18th  ch.  of  Leviticus ;  that  should  state  what,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Church,  the  intent  and  scope  of  that  law  is;  and  that 
should  leave  it  open  to  the  Church  courts  to  deal  with  each  particular 
case  according  to  its  merits,  might  possibly  be  framed  so  as  to  meet  the 
views  of  the  great  majority  of  our  brethren, 

§  5.    Dismission  of  Members  to  otber  Cbnrclies.    P] 

IBooh  of  Discipline,  cliap.  xi.,  sec.  1. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  G2S.] 
Dr.  Leland,  from  the  Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures,  reported 

[*  From  article  oc  "  The  General  Assembly;  "  tonic  same.  Princeton  Review, 
1851,  p.  550. 


DISMISSION  OF  MEMBERS  TO  OTHER  CHURCHES.  237 

upon  Overture  No.  10,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore,  and  submit- 
ted tbe  following  question  :  "  Shall  members  of  our  churches,  who 
may  wish  to  join  churches  not  in  correspondence  with  the  General 
Assembly,  receive  certificates  in  the  same  form  as  if  they  wished  to  join 
another  church  in  our  communion,  or  in  correspondence  with  the  As- 
sembly ;  or  has  the  Church  session  done  all  that  it  ought  to  do,  when 
in  such  cases  the  good  and  regular  standing  of  the  persons  so  applying 
is  duly  certified  ?  " 

On  motion,  the  answer  recommended  by  the  committee  was  laid  on 
the  table,  and  the  following,  after  amendment,  was  adopted,  viz  :  "  This 
whole  subject  is  one  that  ought  to  be  left  to  the  sound  discretion  of  the 
various  Church  sessions,  according  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church." 

The  subject  involved  in  this  overture  is  one  of  the  greatest  practical 
importance.  There  is  nothing  on  which  our  ministers  and  members 
are  more  sensitive,  than  on  the  question  of  Christian  communion. 
There  is  no  point  on  which  the  great  bod)'-  of  them  regard  the  teach- 
ings of  the  word  of  God  more  explicit,  and  therefore  as  to  no  point  are 
they  more  tenacious  of  their  Christian  liberty,  We  may  here  remark 
that  it  is  a  great  infelicity  that  overtures  on  such  subjects  should  be  so 
numerous.  It  is  a  common  infirmity  with  many  men  to  wish  their 
opinions  turned  into  laws.  They  think  certain  things  right  and  expe- 
dient, and  instead  of  being  content  to  act  on  their  own  judgment,  and 
allov/  others  to  act  on  theirs,  they  desire  their  view  of  the  matter  to  be 
made  obligatory  on  all  their  brethren.  One  good  brother,  because  he 
thinks  the  use  of  organs  in  churches  unauthorized  and  injurious, 
becomes  very  desirous  that  their  use  should  be  absolutely  prohibited  by 
authority.  Another  thinks  that  a  regular  dismission  of  a  Church 
member  should  be  given  only  in  certain  cases,  and  he  wishes  his  private 
judgment  to  be  turned  into  a  public  law.  In  an  extended  Church  like 
ours,  there  are  few  evils  which  ought  to  be  more  sedulously  avoided 
than  excessive  legislation.  Leave  as  much  liberty-  to  all  concerned  as 
possible,  if  you  wish  to  preserve  peace  or  union. 

As  to  this  question  of  communion,  it  is  well  known  that  there  are 
two  very  different  views  arising  out  of  different  theories  of  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  Church.  The  one  view  is  that  of  the  great  body  of 
the  Christian  world,  and  is  the  clear  doctrine  of  our  standards.  It  as- 
sumes that  the  terms  of  Christian  communion  are  unalterably  fixed  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  can  be  neither  increased  nor  diminished  by  any 
human  authority.  This  is  one  great  principle.  Another  is,  that  no- 
thing can  justly  be  required  as  a  term  of  Christian  communion,  which 
Christ  has  not  made  necessary  to  admission  to  heaven.  In  other 
words,  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  and  treat  as  Christian  brethren 


238  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

all  ^Yhom  Christ  receives  as  disciples.  We  are  not  to  make  ourselves 
stricter  or  holier  than  he.  Our  standards,  therefore,  lay  down  the  evi- 
dences of  piety  as  the  only  scriptural  conditions  of  Church  communion. 
Competent  knowledge,  faith,  and  holy  living  are  all  the  Church  has 
any  right  to  demand,  because  nothing  else  is  demanded  by  Christ  as  ne- 
cessary to  communion  with  himself.  As  this  is  the  only  scriptutal 
principle,  so  it  is  the  only  one  that  can  be  carried  out.  Can  the  poor 
African  be  required  to  decide  the  questions  between  Prelatists  and 
Presbyterians,  or  between  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  before  he  is 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  It  is  out  of  the  question.  Every 
Church  must  receive,  in  fact,  all  whom  she  regards  as  the  true  follow- 
ers of  Christ.  Therefore,  the  lowest  terms  of  salvation  are  the  highest 
admissible  terms  of  communion.  If  these  principles  are  correct,  it 
follows  that  however  restrictive  are  the  conditions  a  Church  may  see 
fit  to  establish  as  the  terms  of  ministerial  fellowship,  it  must  recognize 
as  a  sister  Church  every  body  which  holds  and  teaches  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  however  erroneous  it  may  be  in  other  respects ; 
and,  therefore,  it  cannot  with  any  consistency  refuse  either  to  receive 
members  from  such  Church,  or  to  dismiss  them  to  it.  That  is,  so  far 
as  general  principles  are  concerned.  For  there  may  be  particular 
cases  in  which,  for  special  reasons,  it  is  proper  to  refuse  to  receive  a 
member  from  another  Presbyterian  church,  belonging  to  our  own  body. 
All  we  mean  to  say  is,  that  any  body  which  we  recognize  as  a  Christian 
Church,  we  are  bound  to  treat  as  such,  in  receiving  worthy  members 
from  them,  and  in  dismissing  to  them  such  as  desire  their  fellowship. 

The  other  radically  different  view  of  Christian  communion  is  that 
which  is  characteristic  of  our  Scotch  brethren,  and  especially  of  the 
secession  portion  of  them.  They  regard  the  Church  so  much  as  a  wit- 
ness for  the  truth,  that  they  overlook  its  wider  aspect  as  a  "  congrega- 
tion of  faithful  men,"  or  "  the  communion  of  saints."  They  consider 
themselves,  therefore,  as  joining  in  the  testimony  of  any  Church  with 
which  they  commune ;  and  they  require  all  who  wish  to  commune 
with  them  to  join  in  their  peculiar  testimony,  whatever  it  may  be.  Of 
course  they  cannot  consistently  commune  themselves,  nor  allow  their 
members  to  commune  with  any  other  than  their  own  churches.  Even 
some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  seemed,  at  first,  in 
danger  of  falling  into  this  false  theory.  They  were  in  their  zeal  for 
cutting  off  all  communion  with  the  Established  Church,  lest,  as  they 
said,  they  should  vitiate  their  testimony.  Happily  for  them  and  the 
cause  of  Christ,  this  was  a  passing  cloud.  That  Church  has  adhered  to 
the  scriptural  doctrine,  which  has  ever  been  held  sacred  by  the  great 
body  of  Protestants.  Christian  communion  is  communion  of  men  as 
Christians,  not  as  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  or  Episcopalians.    We 


WITHDKAWAL  FKOM  THE  COMMUNION.  239 

recognize  those  with  whom  we  commune,  or  to  whom  we  dismiss  our 
members,  as  Christians,  and  as  nothing  more.  "We  give  no  sanction  to 
their  peculiarities,  whatever  they  may  be.  We  have  so  often  heard  the 
strongest  feeling  expressed  by  our  pastors  on  this  subject,  that  Ave  are 
persuaded  that  any  attempt  of  the  General  Assembly  to  prevent  their 
enjoying  on  this  subject  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  them 
free,  would  be  followed  by  the  most  unhappy  consequences.  We  re- 
joice, therefore,  in  the  wise  disposition  of  this  matter  recorded  above. 

§  6.    The  Riglit  of  Chnrch  Members  to  withdraw  from  the 
Commiiuion  of  the  €hurch.['^] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  ix.  sec.  6. — Corap.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  127.] 

An  overture  from  the  Presbytery  of  Montgomery  was  presented, 
asking  whether  Church  sessions  have  the  right,  under  the  constitution, 
to  allow  members  to  withdraw  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  who 
are  not  guilty  of  any  immoral  conduct,  and  who  do  not  manifest  an  in- 
tention to  connect  themselves  with  any  other  Church.  The  committee 
on  Bills  and  Overtures  reported  through  their  chairman,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Thornwell,  that  this  question  ought  to  be  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
This  report  was  objected  to,  and  an  amendment  offered  that  it  be 
answered  in  the  negative.  This  gave  rise  to  an  animated  debate,  and 
the  previous  question  having  been  moved  and  seconded,  the  amend- 
ment was  cut  off,  and  the  vote  taken  on  the  report  of  the  committee, 
Arhich  recommended  an  affirmative  answer,  when  said  report  was  re- 
jected by  a  decided  majority.  Of  the  debate  on  this  subject  we  find 
the  following  report  in  the  New  York  Observer : 

''  Eev.  Dr.  Humphrey,  of  Kentucky,  moved  to  strike  out  the  vord  affirmative 
and  insert  negative.  He  contended  that  there  are  three  modes  only  by  which  a 
member  could  be  separated  from  the  Church.  1.  By  regular  trial ;  2.  By  dismis- 
sion to  another  body  ;  and  3.  By  death.  If  any  other  way  is  recognized  by  the 
constitution,  he  should  like  to  have  it  stated  by  the  committee.  The  obligation 
•which  a  man  takes  upon  himself  is  a  vow  to  God,  and  God  only  can  absolve  him 
from  it.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism,  that  while  the  Church 
cannot  be  the  Lord  of  the  conscience,  neither  can  it  interfere  to  relieve  the  con- 
science of  its  responsibilities.  The  very  nature  of  the  relation  makes  it  an  affair 
with  which  the  Church  may  not  interfere  unless  immorality  shall  render  it  neces- 
sary. 
*****  *  ***** 

"  Other  members  followed  enforcing  these  views,  and  illustrating  tlie  case  by 
facts  and  examples. 

"  Eev.  Dr.  Thornwell.  The  point  of  the  overture  is  entirely  misapprehended. 
It  is  asked  whether  persons  may  withdraw  from  the  Church  who  have  been  re- 

[*From  article  on  ''The  General  Assembly;"  topic  same ;  Princeton  Beview, 
1848,  p.  408.] 


240  CHUECH  POLITY. 

ceived  unadvisedly,  and  are  now  satisfied  that  they  are  not  converted  persons,  yet 
are  regular  in  all  their  private  and  public  duties.  It  is  the  custom  of  the  Church 
wlien  members  absent  themselves  from  the  communion,  to  visit  them  by  commit- 
tee. Suppose  a  member  gives  as  a  reason  for  staying  away,  '  I  am  satisfied  that  I 
am  not  a  member  of  Christ,  and  when  the  pastor  charged  all  those  to  retire  who 
had  not  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  I  was  constrained  in  conscience  to 
obey  the  command.'  What  is  to  be  done  ?  Will  you  discipline  him  ?  For  what? 
For  doing  the  very  thing  which  you  required  him  to  do,  and  winch  if  our  princi- 
ples are  true,  he  was  solemnly  bound  to  do.  What  is  the  object  of  a  trial  ?  Is  it  not 
to  ascertain  whether  a  man  is  or  not  a  member  of  Christ's  body  ?  But  if  he  con- 
fesses that  he  is  not,  it  is  the  best  evidence  that  can  be  given,  and  the  session  may 
declare  the  fact  to  the  Church.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  Erastus  that  the  Church 
was  the  channel  of  grace,  and  had  no  right  to  excommunicate  members  for  any 
cause.  But  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  any  Christian  Church  at  the  present  day.  Now 
we  hold  that  union  with  Christ  is  the  basis  of  union  with  the  Church,  and  a  credi- 
ble profession  simply  declares  the  fact.  Will  any  Church  session  undertake  to 
aiBrm  that  a  man  is  and  shall  be  a  member  of  the  Church,  when  he  tells  them  that 
he  is  not  a  member  of  Christ  ?  Certainly  not.  It  is  now  proposed  that  in  such  a 
case  the  session  shall  place  him  in  the  same  position  with  the  baptized  children  of 
the  Church,  and  not  make  him  a  heathen  and  publican. 

"  Another  point.  The  Protestant  Church  knows  no  man  unless  he  is  voluntarily 
subject  to  her  authority  :  and  the  vow  of  subjection  is  binding  no  longer  than  he 
feels  that  he  has  a  right  to  submit  to  them.  The  Roman  Catholic  view  is  that  a 
man  is  everywhere  bound  by  his  vow  to  the  Church,  and  that  once  a  virgin,  bound 
by  vow,  always  a  virgin,  once  a  monk,  always  a  monk.  But  with  us  the  vow  is 
not  to  the  Church,  but  to  God,  and  he  will  be  the  judge.  We  propose  no  innova- 
tion, but  the  assertion  of  a  right  that  is  inherent  in  our  Chui'ch,  and  ought  to 
Ije  distinctly  set  forth.  Thus  we  shall  se^jarate  the  chaff  from  the  wheat,  purify 
the  Church,  and  publish  the  fact  to  the  world. 

"  The  Church  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  voluntary  society,  but  there  was  this  ob- 
vious feature :  A  voluntary  society  prescribes  its  own  rules,  but  the  Church  has 
its  laws  from  its  head :  they  are  not  to  be  altered  or  amended. 


We  should  judge  from  this  report  that  there  was  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  parties  to  this  debate ;  that  Dr.  Thorn  well  would  not 
deny  that  a  man's  relation  to  the  Church  cannot  be  dissolved  at  plea- 
sure, and  that  the  opponents  of  the  report  of  the  committee  would  not 
deny  the  justice  of  his  remarks.  The  difference  seems  to  lie  in  the  use 
of  terms.  What  is  meant  by  withdrawing  from  the  Church  ?  If  it 
means  simply  abstaining  from  the  communion  table,  then  we  see  not 
how  Dr.  Thornwell's  arguments  are  to  be  resisted.  It  is  the  duty 
of  all  who  hear  the  gospel,  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ  in  tlie 
manner  which  he  has  appointed.  Some,  however,  have  not  the  qualifi- 
cations which  he  has  commanded  his  Church  to  require  in  those  whom 
she  receives  to  the  Lord's  supper.  Others  are  prevented  by  illness,  by 
providential  hindrances,  or  by  scruples  of  conscience.     Now  if  the 


WITHDEAWAL  FROM  THE  COMMUNION.  241 

question  is  whether  a  Church  member  may  absent  himself  from  the 
Lord's  supper,  without  justly  subjecting  himself  to  suspension  or  ex- 
communication, we  presume  no  one  would  be  disposed  to  answer  in  the 
negative.  He  may  be  in  a  state  of  spiritual  darkness ;  he  may  serious- 
ly doubt  his  own  conversion ;  he  may  have  erroneous  views  of  the  qual- 
ifications for  that  service.  In  all  such  cases  he  should  be  tenderly 
instructed,  admonished,  and  borne  with  in  all  long-suffering  and  pa- 
tience. But  if  he  keeps  aloof  from  this  ordinance  through  indifference, 
or  a  worldly  spirit,  he  is  certainly  deserving  of  censure,  first  of  admo- 
nition, and  if  that  prove  ineffectual,  of  suspension.  We  should  there- 
fore be  disposed  to  side  with  Dr.  Thornwell  in  saying  that  there  are 
cases  in  which  a  session  would  be  fully  justified  in  permitting  a  mem- 
ber to  absent  himself  from  the  Lord's  supper.  But  we  would  not  call 
this  withdrawing  from  the  Church.  This  mode  of  expression  is  derived 
from  the  Congregational  theory  of  the  Church,  which  makes  the  regen- 
erate the  materials  and  confederation  the  formal  cause  of  a  Church. 
A  covenant  into  which  certain  believers  enter  with  each  other,  ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  makes  them  a  Church.  This  is  a  voluntary 
compact  and  association,  from  which  any  man  may  withdraw,  or  from 
which  he  may  be  excluded.  But  according  to  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine a  man  can  no  more  withdraw  from  the  Church,  than  he  can  with- 
draw from  the  moral  government  of  God.  The  Church  consists  of  all 
those  who  profess  the  true  religion  together  with  their  children.  Such 
children  are  baptized  because  they  are  Church  members.  The  only 
possible  way  in  which  they  can  cease  to  be  members,  is  either  by  open 
apostasy,  or  excommunication.  Suspension  from  Church  privileges  is 
not  exclusion  from  the  Church,  but  simply  a  refusal  to  allow  the  full 
benefits  of  Church  communion  to  certain  persons  for  a  season,  just  as  a 
father  may  withhold  from  a  disobedient  son,  the  privileges  of  the  family 
circle  for  a  season  without  disowning  him  as  a  child.  According  to 
the  Presbyterian  theory  of  the  Church  therefore,  no  man  can  withdraw 
from  it.  He  cannot  cease  to  profess  the  true  religion,  except  by  deny- 
ing its  doctrines,  for  which  he  should  be  cut  off.  He  cannot  free  him- 
self from  the  obligation  of  submitting  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church, 
of  communing  with  it,  and  of  discharging  all  the  duties  of  a  Church 
member,  any  more  than  he  can  free  himself  from  the  obligation  of  the 
moral  law.  If  he  neglects  his  duties,  he  should,  be  dealt  with  for  his 
disobedience;  tenderly  admonished,  suspended,  or  excommunicated  as 
the  case  may  be.  Being  born  within  the  Church,  or  professing  in  bap- 
tism the  true  religion,  he  has  incurred  obligations  and  responsibilities 
from  which  he  can  never  free  himself,  he  has  assumed  a  yoke  which  he 
can  neither  cast  off,  nor  have  removed  by  any  human  hand.  The 
Church  is  a  voluntary  society  not  in  the  sense  that  a  man  may  enter 
16 


242  CHUECH  POLITY. 

and  withdraw  from  it,  at  pleasure ;  but  because  no  one  can  be  forced 
to  enter  it,  or  coerced  to  remain  in  it.  In  the  same  sense  obedience  to 
the  moral  law  must  be  voluntary.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  because 
a  man  cannot  lawfully  be  forced  to  profess  the  true  religion,  he  may 
cease  to  make  that  profession  without  censure.  While  therefore  we 
agree  with  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  in  saying  no  man  can  be  al- 
lowed to  withdraw  from  the  Church,  we  agree  with  Dr.  Thornwell  in 
thinking  he  may,  in  certain  cases,  be  allowed  to  absent  himself  from 
the  Lord's  table,  without  incurring  the  sentence  either  of  suspension  or 
excommunication. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

CHURCH   OFFICERS, 
g  1.    Title  of  Bishop.  [«] 

\_Form  of  Oov.,  chap,  iv.] 

When  the  roll  was  read  in  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day  of  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Assembly  [1846],  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  moved  that  the 
word  Bishop  be  struck  out  in  every  case  where  it  was  applied  to  the 
clerical  delegates,  and  that  the  word  minister  be  substituted  in  its 
place.    This  motion  prevailed  by  a  large  majority. 

With  regard  to  the  title  Bishop,  there  are  certain  points  as  to  which  all 
parties  may  be  considered  as  substantially  agreed.  One  is  that  in  the  New 
Testament  the  title  is  given  to  those  oflBcers  in  the  Church  who  are  ap- 
pointed to  rule,  teach,  and  ordain.  Another  is,  that  the  terms  Presbyter 
and  Bishop  are  applied  to  the  same  officers.  Prelatists  long  contended 
against  this  position,  but  have  at  last,  with  common  consent,  conceded 
it.  In  so  doing  they  have  conceded  almost  the  entire  ground  of  argu- 
ment from  Scripture  in  behalf  of  prelacy,  and  assumed  the  task  of 
proving  that  though  in  the  apostolic  age  a  Bishop  was  a  Presbyter, 
and  nothing  more,  in  the  immediately  succeeding  age  he  was  a  prelate. 
That  is,  that  during  the  time  of  the  apostles,  the  terra  designated  one 
office,  but  immediately  and  forever  after  a  different  one.  We  find 
while  the  apostles  lived  a  set  of  men  called  Bishops ;  we  find  the  same 
thing  in  the  next  age, 'and  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  that  these  men 
filled  offices  essentially  different.  This  sudden  change  in  the  meaning 
of  a  title  is  unexampled  and  incredible.  A  third  point  beyond  dispute 
is,  that  though  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  convertible  terms  in  the 

[*  From  article  on  ''The  General  Assembly;"  topic  same;  Princeton  Beview, 
1846,  p.  418.] 


TITLE  OF  BISHOP.  243 

apostolic  Church,  yet  as  the  hierarchical  principle  gradually  gained 
ground,  the  term  Bishop  was  appropriated  to  one  class  of  the  clergy, 
and  Presbyter  to  another,  and  that  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  whole 
Church  for  centuries  has  given  this  restrictive  meaning  to  the  word 
Bishop. 

The  question  then  is,  is  it  desirable  to  change  this  long-established 
usage,  and  to  restore  to  the  word  its  scriptural  meaning.  We  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  if  practicable,  it  would  be  desirable  ;  but  be- 
lieving it  to  be  impracticable,  we  regard  the  attempt  as  altogether  in- 
expedient. If  all  Protestant  Christendom  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion had  reverted  to  the  scriptural  usage,  and  called  all  invested  with 
the  cure  of  souls,  all  who  had  the  right  to  rule,  teach  and  ordain. 
Bishops,  it  would  have  deprived  prelatists  of  an  advantage  to  which 
they  admit  they  are  not  entitled,  and  to  which  they  are  more  indebted 
than  to  any  of  their  arguments,  either  from  Scripture  or  antiquity. 
As  we  admit  the  office  of  a  Bishop  to  be  a  scriptural  office,  to  all 
appearance.  Episcopalians  have  that  office  and  we  have  it  not.  In  re- 
linquishing to  them  the  title,  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation,  in  ap- 
pearance, conceded  that  their  ministers  were  not  Bishops,  whereas,  if  those 
Churches  had  claimed  the  title,  and  thus  established  a  Protestant  usus 
loquendi  agreeable  to  the  admitted  usage  of  Scripture,  making  the  word 
Bishop  mean  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  prelatists  would  have  been  forced 
to  the  constant  avowal  of  their  real  doctrine,  viz :  that  prelates  are  not 
Bishops  but  apostles.  This  would  have  placed  them  on  their  true 
ground.  But  as  this  was  not  done,  and  as  the  usage  of  all  Churches 
and  of  common  life,  has  made  Bishop  and  prelate  synonymous,  we 
think  it  as  hopeless  a  task  to  attempt  a  change  now  as  to  make  the 
word  white  mean  black,  and  black  white.  If  all  who  use  the  English 
language  would  agree  that  black  hereafter  should  mean  white,  the  change 
might  in  time  be  made,  though  with  great  difficulty  even  then,  as  all 
books  written  before  such  determination  was  come  to,  would  have  to  be 
expurgated.  In  like  manner,  if  all  Christian  nations  should  agree  to 
revert  to  the  scriptural  usage  of  the  word  Bishop,  its  original  meaning 
might  gradually  be  restored.  But  for  any  one  portion  of  the  Church 
to  effect  that  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  we  hold  to  be  impos- 
sible ;  and  if  impossible,  the  attempt  is  obviously  unwise.  We  are 
glad,  therefore,  that  the  motion  to  substitute  the  word  minister  for  that 
of  Bishop  in  the  INIinute^  of  the  Assembly  prevailed,  and  we  hope  the 
matter  will  rest  where  it  is. 


244  CHUECH  POLITY. 


§  2.    Who  may  Vote  in  the  Election  of  Pastor.  [*] 

[Form  of  Oov.,  chap,  xv.,  sec  iv.— Digest  of  1873,  pp.  404,  405.] 

The  selection  of  pastors  for  particular  congregations  has,  in  all  a'ges 
of  the  Church,  been  a  matter  of  contention ;  and  great  diversity  of 
usage  has  prevailed  in  relation  to  this  subject.  In  prelatical  churches, 
it  often  rests  with  the  bishop  of  the  diocese ;  in  endowed  churches,  the 
right  is  vested  in  the  patron ;  in  the  Dutch  Keformed  Church,  the  pas- 
tors are  chosen  by  the  great  consistory,  that  is,  (as  elders  are  elected 
annually,)  by  the  acting  elders,  and  by  all  others  belonging  to  the  con- 
gregation, who  have  exercised  the  office  of  the  eldership.  In  New  Eng- 
land, according  to  the  old  usage,  there  were  two  distinct  bodies,  the 
church  and  the  parish ;  the  former  consisting  of  the  professedly  regen- 
erated, united  by  covenant,  and  the  latter,  of  those  inhabitants  of  the 
neighborhood  (or  parish)  who  frequented  the  church,  and  contributed 
to  the  support  of  its  minister.  These  bodies  voted  separately  for  the 
pastor,  and  their  concurrence  was  requisite  for  a  choice.  Of  the 
church,  only  the  male  members,  or  brotherhood,  voted.  In  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  great  diversity  of  usage  has  prevailed.  Perhaps 
the  most  common  method  is  for  heads  of  families,  and  they  only, 
whether  communicants  or  not,  to  vote  in  the  choice  of  pastor.  In  other 
cases,  all  communicants,  male  and  female,  adults  and  minors,  and  all 
contributors  vote.  In  others  again,  the  elective  franchise  is  confined 
to  adult  members  of  the  congregation. 

This  diversity  of  practice  betrays  great  confusion  of  ideas.  There  is 
no  one  clearly  recognized  theory  by  which  the  practical  question  is  con- 
trolled. It  is  easy  to  say,  a  pastor  is  an  ecclesiastical  officer,  he  is  a 
minister  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  only  members  of  the  Church  can 
be  entitled  to  a  voice  in  his  election.  But  then  the  question  arises,  what 
is  the  Church  ?  This  is  a  question  to  which  no  one  answer  can  be  given. 
In  other  words,  the  term  is  used  in  Scripture  and  in  ecclesiastical  lan- 
guage in  yery  different  senses.  The  Church,  which  is  the  body  of  Christ, 
which  he  loved,  and  for  which  he  gave  himself,  is  the  whole  body  of  the 
elect.  Sometimes  the  word  means  the  whole  body  of  Christ's  true  peo- 
ple on  earth.  Sometimes  it  designates  the  true  children  of  God  collec- 
tively, in  some  one  place ;  at  others,'  all  those  who  profess  the  true  reli- 
gion throughout  the  world,  together  with  their  children ;  sometimes  such 
professors  when  united  in  one  organization,  as  when  we  speak  of  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Presbyterian,  or  the  Methodist  Church;  or,  in 
a  more  limited  sense,  the  first,  second,  or  third  church  of  any  place  or 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  "  ;  Princeton  Review,  1863,  p.  482.] 


WHO  MAY  VOTE  IN  THE  ELECTION  OF  PASTOR.  245 

city.  These  are  only  some  of  the  legitimate  meanings  of  the  word ;  and 
it  is  evident  that  no  progress  is  made  in  deciding  who  are  members  of 
the  Church,  until  it  is  settled  in  what  sense  the  word  Church  is  to  be 
taken.  As  men  differ  as  to  the  meaning  which  they  assign  to  the  word, 
they  of  course  differ  on  all  the  points  involved  in  its  interpretation.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Puritan,  or  Independent  theory,  a  church  is  a  body  of 
regenerated  persons  united  together  by  covenant,  meeting  together 
for  Christian  worship  and  mutual  watch  and  care.  According  to 
others,  a  particular  or  individual  church  consists  of  all  baptized  per- 
sons united  as  an  organized  Christian  assembly.  According  to  the 
scriptural  and  common  usage  of  the  term,  an  individual  church  is  a 
worshipping  assembly  of  professed  Christians.  Thus,  when  we  speak 
of  St.  Giles'  Church,  Edinburgh,  or  the  Grand  Street  church,  New 
York,  or  the  Tenth  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  every  one  un- 
derstands us  to  mean  the  stated  worshipping  congregations  which  are 
thus  designated.  Thus,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Church  of  Antioch, 
the  Church  in  the  house  of  Aquila.  Perhaps  the  most  common  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  is  a  worshipping  assembly.  As 
any  assembly,  or  congregation  of  people,  was  an  tA/lr^aia  so  any  stated 
congregation  of  worshippers  is  an  ly.y.Xridia  in  the  religious  sense  of  the 
word.    The  l/.7lr^aia  Kvpiou  is  correctly  defined  to  be  coetus  cultorumDei. 

It  does  not  follow  that  all  the  members  of  the  Church  have  the 
same  privileges,  any  more  than  that  all  the  citizens  of  a  State  have  the 
same  rights.  The  elective  franchise,  for  example,  in  the  State  is  con- 
fined to  a  small  portion  of  the  citizens.  All  minors,  and  females,  at 
least,  are  excluded.  So  in  the  Church,  different  members  have  differ- 
ent privileges.  Some  have  the  right  to  administer  discipline,  some  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  some  to  admission  of  pastors,  some  to  vote 
for  Church  officers.  The  right  of  particular  members  depends  partly 
on  their  gifts  and  qualifications,  partly  on  the  judgment  and  choice  of 
those  authorized  to  decide  in  such  cases.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
the  decision  of  the  question,  who  should  be  allowed  to  vote  in  the  selec- 
tion of  a  pastor,  does  not  simply  depend  on  the  question  who  are  mem- 
b'ers  of  the  Church.  That  is  one  point  to  be  settled,  but  it  is  not  the 
only  one. 

The  Puritan  or  Independent  theory  of  the  Church,  that  it  consists 
exclusively  of  those  who  are  deemed  regenerate,  and  their  minor  chil- 
dren, has  unfortunately  gained  ascendency  over  many  of  our  ministers 
and  members.  This  is  to  be  attributed  partly  to  the  general  familiar- 
ity with  the  writings  of  Owen  and  other  English  Independents,  but  es- 
pecially to  the  all-prevailing  influence  of  the  ideas  and  principles  of 
the  New  England  Congregationalists.  This  theory,  however,  is  thor- 
oughly opposed  to  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  and,  as  we  think, 


246  CHUECH  POLITY. 

to  the  plain  teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  It  owes  its  origin  to  the 
desire  to  make  the  phenomenal  agree  with  the  real,  the  visible  with  the 
invisible  Church.  This  can  never  be  realized  in  this  world,  and  it  never 
was  designed  that  men  should  accomplish  this  desirable  end.  Men  can- 
not read  the  heart.  They  cannot  discriminate  between  the  growiug 
wheat  and  tares.  The  apostolic  Churches  consisted  largely  of  those 
who  were  carnal,  and  walked  as  men.  The  same  is  true  of  all  Churches 
since  that  time.  He  is  a  Christian  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  is  a  true 
believer  ;  but  we  must  regard  and  treat  as  Christians,  those  who  pro- 
fess the  true  religion,  and  are  free  from  scandal.  Whether  they  are 
regenerated  or  not,  we  cannot  tell.  It  is,  however,  on  this  erroneous 
theory  of  the  Church,  that  many  are  in  favour  of  restricting  the  right 
of  a  voice  in  the  choice  of  pastors  to  communicants. 

The  second  theory  on  this  subject  is,  that  the  visible  church  consists 
exclusively  of  those  who  have  been  baptized,  and  consequently,  that  no 
unbaptized  person  is  entitled  to  vote.  But  this  theory  is  clearly 
against  our  standards.  Our  Book,  and  the  general  consent  of  Chris- 
tians, teach  that  the  visible  Church  consists  of  those  who  profess  the 
true  religion,  together  with  their  children.  Baptism  is  one,  but  not 
the  only  way  of  professing  the  true  religion.  Many  confessors  and 
martyrs  never  were  baptized.  An  orthodox  Quaker,  if  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  a  true  Christian ;  and  if  he  confesses  Christ  with  the 
mouth,  is  a  member  of  the  visible  Church.  Baptism  does  not  make  a 
man  a  member  of  the  Church ;  it  is  the  public  and  orderly  recognition 
of  his  membership.  Since  the  recent  New  England  custom  of  confin- 
ing baptism  to  the  children  of  communicants,  some  of  the  most  respec- 
table and  worthy  members  of  our  congregations  are  unbaptized ;  and, 
on  the  other,  some  of  the  least  worthy  members  of  the  community  were 
baptized  in  infancy.  There  seems  therefore  no  reason,  either  on  the 
score  of  principle  or  of  expediency,  in  confining  the  elective  franchise 
to  baptized  persons. 

The  truth  is,  that  a  church,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  in  the  general 
usage  of  the  community,  according  to  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  Westminster  standards,  is  an  organized  Christian  society. 
Such  society  may  place  what  restrictions  they  please  on  the  right  of 
suflTrage.  They  may  confine  it,  as  do  the  Dutch,  to  the  eldership ;  or  to 
the  adult  male  communicants,  or  to  the  communicants  whether  male  or 
female ;  or  the  heads  of  family,  orderly  members  of  the  society ;  or  they 
may  throw  it  open  to  all  contributors,  Avhether  adults  or  minors.  We 
have  no  established  rule,  except  the  general  directions  contained  in 
the  Form  of  Government  on  this  subject.  The  security,  under  our 
system,  is  in  the  Presbyteries.  No  man  can  be  chosen  or  installed  as 
pastor  over  any  of  our  congregations,  who  has  not  passed  through  all 


^  SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  247 

the  prescribed  trials  for  ordination,  and  who  has  not  received  the  offi- 
cial sanction  of  his  brethren  as  an  orthodox  and  faithful  man. 


§    3.    Support  of  tlie  Clergy.  [*] 

[jPorm  of  Government,  cliap.  xv.,  sec  vi. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  406-408.] 

This  suggestive  and  teeming  pamphlet  has  now  been  several  months 
before  the  churches,  and  we  presume  in  the  hands  of  almost  all  our 
ministers.  We  cannot  suffer  ourselves  to  think  that  so  much  practical 
wisdom,  enforced  by  the  earnest  eloquence  of  Chalmers,  can  fail  to  in- 
fluence for  good  a  multitude  of  minds.  We  may  not  immediately  see 
its  effects,  but  the  principles  here  suggested,  the  plans  proposed,  and  the 
motives  urged  must  commend  themselves  to  the  judgment  and  con- 
science of  the  readers,  and  must  induce  them  to  act,  or  at  least  prepare 
them  to  act  with  greater  intelligence  and  zeal,  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
various  enterprises  in  which  as  a  Church  we  are  engaged. 

We  propose  to  select  from  the  numerous  topics  here  discussed  the 
support  of  the  clergy,  as  a  subject  of  a  few  remarks.  That  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  Church  to  sustain  those  who  are  engaged  in  preaching  the 
gospel,  is  not  a  disputed  point.  The  apostle  rests  this  obligation  on 
the  following  grounds:  1.  The  general  principle  that  labour  is  enti- 
titled  to  a  reward,  or,  as  our  Saviour  expresses  it,  the  labourer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire.  This  principle,  the  apostle  reminds  us,  is  recog- 
nized in  all  the  departments  of  human  life,  and  has  the  sanction  of  the 
law  of  God  in  its  application  even  to  brutes,  for  it  is  written :  Thou 
shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn.  2.  It  is  a  simple  mat- 
ter of  commutative  justice.  If  we  have  sown  unto  you  spiritual  things, 
is  it  a  great  matter  that  we  should  reap  your  carnal  things  ?  If  we  do 
you  a  great  good,  is  it  unreasonable  to  expect  you  to  do  us  a  less  ? 
3.  In  all  countries,  and  under  all  forms  of  religions,  true  or  false — those 
who  minister  at  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar.  4.  It  is  an  ex- 
press ordinance  of  Christ  that  they  which  preach  the  gospel  should  live 
by  the  gospel. 

It  is  not,  however,  every  one  who  preaches  the  gospel  who  is  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  this  ordinance.  In  many  cases  men,  who  by  profession 
are  lawyers,  merchants,  or  mechanics,  are  at  the  same  time  preachers. 
Preaching,  however,  is  not  their  vocation ;  it  is  not  the  work  to  which 
their  time  and  talents  are  devoted.  It  is  a  service  in  which  they  occa- 
sionally engage,  as  opportunity  offers,  without  interrupting  their  ordi- 

[*Article,  same  title,  in  review  of  "  An  Earnest  Appeal  to  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland,  on  the  subject  of  Economics,  by  Thomas  Chalmers,  D.  £>."  Princeton  Review, 
1847,  p.  360.] 


2-18  CHUECH  POLITY. 

nary  engagements.  It  is  evident  that  such  men,  however  laudable 
their  motives,  or  however  useful  their  labours,  are  not  entitled  by  the 
ordinance  of  Christ  to  live  by  the  gospel.  Others,  who  by  profession 
are  preachers,  who  have  been  educated  and  ordained  in  reference  to 
the  sacred  office,  are  at  the  same  time  something  else,  teachers,  farmers 
or  planters.  They  unite  with  their  vocation  as  preachers  some  lucra- 
tive secular  employment.  Sometimes  this  is  a  matter  of  choice ;  more 
frequently,  perhaps,  of  necessity ;  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul, 
of  disinterested  self-denial,  that  they  may  make  the  gospel  of  Christ 
without  charge.  No  one  can  doubt  that  there  may  be  excellent  and 
adequate  reasons  why  a  preacher  should  be  a  teacher  or  a  farmer. 
Nor  can  it  be  questioned  that  every  one  has  a  right  to  judge  of 
those  reasons  for  himself,  and  to  determine  whether  he  will  support 
himself,  or  throw  himself  on  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  But  he  cannot 
do  both.  He  cannot  support  himself  and  claim  the  right  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  Church.  He  throws  himself  out  of  the  scope  of  the 
ordinance  in  question  by  devoting  his  time  and  talents  to  the  work  of 
self-support.  The  plain  scriptural  principle  is,  that  those  who  devote 
themselves  to  the  service  of  the  Church,  have  a  right  to  be  supported 
by  the  Church ;  that  those  who  consecrate  themselves  to  preaching  the 
gospel,  are  entitled  to  live  by  the  gospel.  As  this  is  a  truth  so  plainly 
taught  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  so  generally  conceded,  it  need  not 
be  discussed. 

A  much  more  difficult  question  is :  What  is  the  best  method  of  sus- 
taining the  ministers  of  religion?  In  attempting  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion, we  propose  first  to  state  historically  and  very  briefly  the  different 
methods  which  have  been  adopted  for  that  purpose,  and  secondly  to 
show  that  the  duty  in  question  is  a  duty  common  to  the  whole  Church, 

As  to  the  former  of  the  two  points  proposed  for  consideration,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  the  Levites  being  set 
apart  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  had  thirty -five  cities  with  a  cir- 
cle of  land  of  a  thousand  cubits  around  the  walls  assigned  to  them, 
and  a  tithe  of  all  the  produce  of  the  ground,  of  the  flocks,  and  of  the 
herds.  The  priests  were  supported  by  a  tithe  of  the  portion  paid  the 
Levites ;  by  the  first  fruits  which,  according  to  the  Talmudists,  were  in 
no  case  to  be  less  than  the  sixtieth  of  the  whole  harvest ;  by  a  certain 
portion  of  the  sacrifices  offered  on  the  altar;  by  the  price  paid  for  the 
redemption  of  the  first-born  among  men,  and  of  those  animals  which 
were  not  allowed  to  be  offered  in  sacrifice.  They  were  moreover  ex- 
empt from  taxation  and  military  duty.  Such  was  the  abundant  pro- 
vision which  God  ordained  for  the  support  of  the  ministers  of  religion. 

Under  the  new  dispensation,  our  Lord  while  explicitly  enjoining  the 
duty,  left  his  people  free  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  should  be  discharged. 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLEEGY.  249 

From  the  record  contained  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  several  facts 
bearing  on  this  subject  may  be  learned.  First,  that  a  lively  sense  of 
the  brotherhood  of  believers  filled  the  hearts  of  the  early  Christians, 
and  was  the  effect  of  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Sec- 
ondly, that  in  consequence  of  this  feeling  of  brotherhood,  they  had  all 
thmgs  in  common.  The  multitude  of  them  that  believed,  we  are  told, 
were  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul ;  neither  said  any  of  them  that  ought 
of  the  things  which  he  possessed  was  his  own;  but  they  had  all  things 
common  ;  neither  was  there  any  among  them  that  lacked.  Acts  ii.  41, 
47.  Such  was  the  effect  of  the  vivid  consciousness  of  the  union  of  be- 
lievers as  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  such  is  the  uniform  tendency 
of  that  consciousness,  manifesting  itself  in  the  same  manner  in  j)ropor- 
tion  to  its  strength.  Experience,  however,  soon  taught  these  early 
Christians  that  they  were  not  perfect,  and  that  it  was  not  wise  to  act  in 
an  imperfect  and  mixed  community  on  a  principle  which  is  applicable 
only  to  one  really  pervaded  and  governed  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  As 
the  Church  therefore  increased,  and  came  to  include  many  who  were 
Christians  only  in  name,  or  who  had  but  little  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
the  operation  of  this  feeling  of  brotherhood  was  arrested.  It  would 
have  been  destructive  to  act  towards  nominal  as  towards  real  Christians, 
towards  indolent  and  selfish  professors  as  though  they  were  instinct 
with  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  is  the  fundamental  error  of  all  the  mod- 
ern systems  of  communism.  They  proceed  on  the  false  assumption  that 
men  are  not  depraved.  They  take  for  granted  that  they  are  disinter- 
ested, faithful,  laborious.  Every  such  system,  therefore,  has  come  to 
naught  and  must  work  evil  and  only  evil,  until  men  are  really  renewed 
and  made  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  the 
subsequent  history,  therefore,  of  the  apostolic  Church,  we  hear  no  more 
of  this  community  of  goods.  The  apostles  never  commanded  it.  They 
left  the  Church  to  act  on  the  principle  that  it  is  one  only  so  far  as  it 
was  truly  one.  They  did  not  urge  the  outward  expression  a  single  step 
beyond  the  inward  reality.  The  instructive  fact,  however,  remains  on 
record  that  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  did  produce  this  lively  sense 
of  brotherhood  among  Christians,  and  a  corresponding  degree  of  liber- 
ality. 

A  third  fact  to  be  learned  from  the  history  given  in  the  Acts,  is  that 
the  early  Christians  looked  upon  their  religious  teachers  as  the  proper 
recipients  and  distributors  of  the  common  property  of  the  Church. 
They  who  were  the  possessors  of  houses  or  lands  sold  them,  and  brought 
the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold  and  laid  them  down  at  the  apos- 
tles' feet ;  and  distribution  was  made  unto  every  man  according  as  he 
had  need.  It  is  obvious  that  this  arrangement  supposes  an  eminently 
pure  state  of  the  Church,  and  would  be  intolerable  in  any  other.     It  is 


250  CHURCH  POLITY. 

also  obvious  that  as  the  Church  enlarged,  an  amount  of  secular  care 
would  thus  be  thrown  on  the  ministers  of  religion  utterly  incompatible 
with  due  attention  to  their  spiritual  duties.  A  new  arrangement  was 
therefore  soon  adopted.  The  apostles  said :  It  is  not  reasonable  that  we 
should  leave  the  Word  of  God  to  serve  tables.  Wherefore,  brethren, 
look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.  An  ex- 
ample was  thus  early  set  of  confiding  to  laymen,  i,  e.,  to  those  who  do 
not  minister  in  word  and  doctrine,  the  secular  concerns  of  the  Church. 
And  no  man  can  estimate  the  evil  which,  in  subsequent  ages,  flowed  from 
the  neglect  of  this  example.  If,  in  human  governments,  it  is  considered 
essential  to  the  liberty  and  welfare  of  the  people,  that  the  sword  and 
purse  should  be  in  different  hands,  it  is  no  less  essential  that  in  the 
Church  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  Word  of  God,  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,  and  the  money  power  should  not  be  united.  It  was 
this  union  which  proved  in  after  ages  one  of  the  most  efiectual  causes 
of  the  secular  power  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  corruption  of  the  Church. 
From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  plain  that,  during  the  lives  of  the 
apostles,  the  ministry  was  sustained  by  the  voluntary  contributions  of 
the  churches.  As  the  Church  increased  and  became  more  compact 
as  a  visible  society,  this  matter  assumed  a  more  regular  shape.  It  seems 
from  the  beginning  to  have  been  the  custom  for  the  believers  to  bring 
certain  gifts  or  offerings  whenever  they  assembled  for  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper ;  a  custom  which,  in  one  form  or  another,  is  con- 
tinued in  most  Churches,  our  own  among  the  number,  to  the  present 
time.  As  in  the  early  Church  the  Lord's  Supper  appears  to  have  been 
a  part  of  the  regular  service  of  every  Lord's  Day,  those  contributions 
were  of  course  weekly.  Besides  this,  there  was  from  a  very  early 
period  a  regular  and  larger  contribution  made  every  month.  It  ap- 
pears also  that  the  early  Christians  inferred  from  the  identity  of  the 
Church  under  the  two  dispensations,  that  it  was  no  less  the  duty  of  the 
people  of  God  now  than  formerly  to  devote  the  first-fruits  of  the  earth 
and  a  tenth  of  their  income  to  his  service.  Long  before  the  payment 
of  tithes  was  enforced  by  law,  it  had  thus  become  a  common  and  volun- 
tary usage.  All  these  contributions  were,  in  each  church,  thrown  into 
a  common  stock,  under  the  control  first  of  the  deacons,  afterwards  of 
the  pastor.  The  amount  of  the  sum  thus  raised  of  course  varied  greatly 
with  the  size  and  wealth  of  the  several  churches.  And  as  the  pastors 
of  the  chief  towns  gradually  became  prelates,  having  many  associated 
and  dependent  congregations  connected  with  the  metropolitan  church, 
this  common  fund  was  divided  into  three  portions :  one  for  the  bishop, 
one  for  the  clergy,  and  one  for  the  poor.  The  bishop  gradually  ac- 
quired the  control  of  this  fund,  and  in  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  A.  D., 


SUPPOKT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  251 

341,  his  right  to  its  management  was  distinctly  asserted.  Thus  also  in 
what  are  called  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  can.  41,  the  right  of  the 
bishop  in  this  matter  is  placed  on  the  ground  that  he  who  is  entrusted 
with  the  care  of  souls  may  well  be  trusted  with  their  money.  Si  ani- 
moB  hominum  preciosce  Episcopo  sunt  creditor,  multo  majus  oportet  eum 
curam  peciiniarum  gerere. 

When  the  Roman  emperor  became  a  Christian  and  made  Cliristian- 
ity  the  religion  of  the  state,  the  state  assumed  the  responsibility  of  sup- 
porting the  ministers  and  institutions  of  religion.  This  has  been  done 
in  various  ways  :  1.  By  the  permanent  grant  of  productive  property  to 
the  Church,  and  by  authorizing  the  acquisition  of  such  property  by  do- 
nations, bequest,  or  purchase.  2.  By  ordaining  the  payment  of  tithes 
and  other  contributions.  3.  By  empowering  every  parish  to  tax  itself 
for  the  support  of  religion,  and  giving  to  such  taxation  the  force  of  law. 
This  was  the  method  so  long  in  use  in  New  England.  4.  By  direct 
appropriations  from  the  public  treasury  in  payment  of  the  salaries  of 
ministers,  just  as  other  public  officers  are  paid.  This  is  the  method 
adopted  in  France  since  the  revolution. 

In  those  countries  in  which  the  Church  and  state  are  not  united,  the 
former  is  supported  either  by  what  may  be  called  ecclesiastical  law,  or 
by  voluntary  contributions  of  its  members.  The  Romish  Church  in 
Ireland  affords  an  example  of  the  former  of  these  methods.  With  the 
peculiar  wisdom  of  silence  for  which  that  Church  is  remarkable,  it  con- 
trives to  raise  from  that  impoverished  people  an  adequate  support  for 
its  hierarchy  and  priesthood.  The  priests  are  supported  by  the  impo- 
sition of  a  regular  contribution  upon  all  his  parishioners  payable  twice 
in  the  year,  at  stated  times  ;  and  by  a  regular  tariff  of  charges  for  spir- 
itual services,  such  as  baptism,  absolution,  the  mass,  extreme  unction 
and  burial.  The  bishops  derive  their  income  from  an  annual  contri- 
bution of  ten  pounds  sterling  from  every  priest  in  their  diocese,  and  by 
holding  as  rectors  some  of  the  most  important  of  the  parishes.  In  this 
way,  by  the  stringent  coercion  of  spiritual  power,  an  income  more  reg- 
ularly paid  than  tax  or  rent,  is  readily  secured. 

Where  the  ministry  is  supported  by  the  voluntary  contributions  of 
the  people,  it  is  done  by  the  contributions  of  the  particular  congrega- 
tion which  the  preacher  serves,  or  from  a  common  fund,  or  by  a  combi- 
nation of  the  two  methods.  There  are,  therefore,  three  general  methods 
by  which  the  support  of  the  clergy  has  been  provided  for.  1.  Volun- 
tary contributions.  2.  Endowments  and  the  law  of  the  land.  3.  By 
ecclesiastical  law.  In  this  country  it  is  not  an  open  question,  which 
of  these  methods  ought  to  be  adopted.  We  are  shut  up  to  the  first. 
And  happily  public  sentiment  both  in  the  Church  and  out  of  it,  has 
sanctioned  as  the  best,  the  only  method  which  in  our  case  is  practicable. 


252  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Admitting  that  in  this  country  the  ministry  must  be  supported  by 
the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  people,  the  particular  question  to 
which  we  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  is;  on  whom  does 
the  responsibility  of  furnishing  that  support  rest  ?  Does  it  rest  on  the 
individual  congregation,  which  the  minister  serves,  or  upon  the  Church 
as  one,  and  the  Church  as  a  whole?  Our  object  is  to  show  that' the 
obligation  rests  upon  the  Church  as  a  whole.  To  prevent  misappre- 
hension, however,  it  is  proper  to  state;  That  nothing  so  visionary  as 
that  every  minister  in  every  part  of  the  country  should  receive  the 
same  salary  is  contemplated.  This  would  be  at  once  unjust  and  im- 
practicable. Much  less  that  there  should  be  any  permanent  fund  from 
the  interest  of  which  all  salaries  should  be  paid.  The  principle  which 
we  wish  to  establish  would  be  fully  satisfied,  if  our  Board  of  Missions, 
instead  of  giving  a  tantalizing  pittance,  were  authorized  and  enabled 
to  give  an  adequate  support  to  every  minister  in  its  service,  devoted  to 
his  work,  i.  e.,  not  engaged  in  any  secular  employment  but  consecra- 
ting his  whole  time  to  the  service  of  the  Church. 

The  first  argument  in  support  of  the  position  here  as^med,  is  drawn 
from  the  nature  of  the  Church.  If,  according  to  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Independents,  believers  are  the  materials  of  a  Church, 
but  a  covenant  its  form ;  if  a  number  of  Christians  become  a  Church 
by  covenanting  to  meet  together  for  worship  and  discipline;  if  a 
Church  owes  its  existence  to  this  mutual  covenant,  just  as  a  city  owes 
its  existence  to  its  charter,  so  that  we  may  as  well  talk  of  a  universal 
city  as  of  a  Church  catholic,  then  there  is  no  room  for  the  discussion 
of  this  question.  No  one  would  think  of  contending  that  the  obliga- 
tion to  support  the  municipal  officers  of  any  one  city  rests  on  the  in- 
habitants of  all  other  cities.  If,  therefore,  the  relation  which  one  con- 
gregation bears  to  all  others  of  the  same  communion,  is  the  same  which 
one  city  bears  to  other  cities,  then  of  course,  every  congregation  is 
bound  to  take  care  of  itself,  and  is  under  no  obligation,  other  than 
that  of  general  benevolence,  to  sustain  the  ministry  in  other  congrega- 
tions, any  more  than  the  people  of  Philadelphia  are  bound  to  support 
the  Mayor  of  New  York.  But  such  is  not  the  scriptural,  it  is  not  the 
Presbyterian  idea  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  the  idea  which  has  been 
living  and  active  in  the  minds  of  all  Christians  from  the  beginning. 
Every  believer  feels  that  he  has  a  Church  relation  to  every  other  be- 
liever ;  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  same  body,  partaker  of  the  same 
Spirit,  that  he  has  with  them  a  common  faith,  hope,  and  Lord,  and  that 
in  virtue  of  this  union,  he  is  under  the  obligation  of  communion,  obedi- 
ence, and  fellowship  in  all  things,  to  believers  as  such,  and  consequently 
to  all  believers. 

There  are  certain  principles  relating  to  the  nature  of  the  Church, 


SUPPOKT  OF  THE  CLEKGY.  253 

•which,  though  generally  admitted  in  theory,  are  seldom  fairly  carried 
out  in  practice.  Of  these  principles,  among  the  most  important  are  the 
following:  1.  That  the  Church  is  one.  There  is  one  kingdom  of 
Christ,  one  fold  of  which  he  is  the  shepherd,  one  body  of  "which  he  is 
the  head.  2.  That  union  with  Christ  is  the  condition  of  unity  in  the 
Church.  We  are  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus,  ^.  e.,  in  virtue  of  our  union 
with  him ;  and  consequently  the  Church  consists  of  all  w^ho  are  in 
Christ.  3.  That  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  without  measure  in 
Christ,  and  from  him  is  communicated  to  all  his  people,  is  the  bond  of 
union  between  them  and  him,  and  between  the  constituent  members  of 
his  body.  4.  That  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  the  members  of  the 
Church,  as  it  is  the  ultimate  gi-ound  of  its  unity,  so  it  is  the  cause  or 
source  of  outward  union  in  all  its  legitimate  forms.  The  Church  is,  or 
ought  to  be,  one  in  faith,  in  communion,  in  worship,  in  organization 
and  obedience,  just  so  far,  and  no  farther  than  the  indwelling  Spirit  is 
productive  of  such  union.  5.  There  are  certain  duties  which  necessa- 
rily arise  out  of  this  relation  of  believers  to  each  other  as  members  of 
the  same  Church,  and  which  are  co-extensive  with  the  relation  out  of 
which  they  spring.  Among  those  duties  are  sympathy  and  mutual 
assistance.  It  is  because  believers  are  members  of  one  body  that  they 
are  expected  to  sympathize  with  one  another,  just  as  the  hand  sj^mpa- 
thizes  with  the  foot,  or  the  eye  with  the  ear  in  the  natural  body.  It  is 
because  believers  are  the  organs  and  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that 
we  are  commanded  to  obey  one  another  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  to 
bring  our  complaints  to  the  Church,  and  to  hear  the  Church  on  pain 
of  being  considered  heathen  men  and  publicans.  It  is  because  we  are 
all  brethren,  otxscot  rrjq  iztazzwq,  that  we  are  bound  to  bear  one  an- 
other's burdens,  and  to  distribute  to  the  necessities  of  the  saints.  These 
are  duties  we  owe  to  believers  as  such,  and  therefore  not  to  those  only 
who  may  live  in  the  same  place  with  us,  or  worship  with  us  in  the 
same  house.  Proximity  of  residence,  or  association  in  worship,  is  not 
the  ground  of  these  obligations.  They  are  founded  on  a  far  higher  rela- 
tion, a  relation  which  exists  between  all  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  and 
therefore  they  bind  every  member  in  reference  to  all  his  fellow-members. 
This  being  the  true  idea  of  the  Church,  it  follows  that  if  perfectly 
realized,  all  Christians  would  be  united  in  one  ecclesiastical  body. 
That  consummation  is  now  hindered  by  their  imperfection.  Though 
ojie  in  faith,  it  is  only  within  the  narrow  limits  of  essential  doctrines. 
Though  one  in  affection,  it  is  not  with  that  full  confidence  and  cordial- 
ity necessary  for  harmonious  action  in  the  same  external  society.  So 
long  therefore  as  the  inward  unity  of  the  Church  is  imperfect,  its  out- 
ward union  must  be  in  like  manner  imperfect.  This  admission,  how- 
ever, does  not  imply  that  outward  disunion  is  itself  a  good ;   or  that 


254  [CHURCH  POLITY. 

unity  ouglit  not  to  be  outwardly  expressed  as  far  as  it  really  exists. 
Consequently  those  who  are  one  in  spirit ;  w^hose  views  as  to  doctrine, 
worship,  and  discipline,  are  such  as  to  admit  of  their  harmonious  co- 
operation, are  bound  to  unite  as  one  outward  or  visible  Church. 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  those  who  are  united  in  the  same  visi- 
ble Church  owe  certain  duties  to  each  other.  In  other  words,  there  are 
certain  duties  which  rest  upon  them  as  a  Church.  It  is  also  admitted 
that  the  support  of  the  ministry  is  one  of  those  duties.  If,  therefore, 
the  Church  is  nothing  and  can  be  nothing  beyond  a  single  congrega- 
tion, then  that  duty  and  all  others  of  a  like  kind  Avliich  rest  upon  the 
Church  as  such,  are  limited  to  the  bounds  of  the  congregation.  The 
obligation  of  obedience  does  not  extend  beyond  the  list  of  their  fellow 
worshippers  in  the  same  house.  The  obligation  to  support  the  ministry 
is  confined  to  their  own  immediate  pastor.  But  if  the  Church  consists 
of  all  believers,  then  the  whole  body  of  believers  stand  in  the  relation 
of  church-membership,  and  the  duties  of  obedience  and  mutual  aid  in 
the  discharge  of  all  ecclesiastical  obligations  rest  on  the  whole  united 
body  ;  that  is,  on  all  who  recognise  each  other  as  members  of  the  same 
Church.  It  follows,  therefore,  from  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
that  the  obligation  to  provide  the  means  of  grace  for  the  whole  Church, 
rests  on  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  not  merely  or  exclusively  on  each 
separate  congregation  for  itself. 

The  second  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  is  derived  from  the 
commission  given  to  the  Church.  Christ  said  to  his  disciples  :  Go  into 
all  the  world  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations.  The  prerogative  and 
duty  here  enjoined,  is  to  teach  all  nations.  For  the  discharge  of  this 
duty  the  ministry  was  appointed.  Christ,  in  the  first  instance  person- 
ally, and  afterwards  by  his  Spirit,  calls  and  qualifies  certain  men  to  be 
organs  and  agents  of  the  Church  in  the  great  work  of  teaching  the  na- 
tions. To  whom  then  was  this  commission  given?  On  whom  does  the 
obligation  of  discharging  the  duty  it  enjoins  rest?  Not  on  the  apos- 
tles alone — not  on  the  ministry  alone, — ^but  on  the  whole  Church. 
This  is  indeed  a  very  important  point,  much  debated  between  Roman- 
ists and  Protestants.  It  must  here  be  taken  for  granted,  that  neither 
prelates  nor  presbyters  are  the  Church,  but  that  God's  people  are  the 
Church,  and  that  to  the  Church  as  such,  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  to 
the  Church  as  one,  was  this  great  commission  given.  It  was  originally 
addressed  to  a  promiscuous  assembly  of  believers.  The  power  and  the 
promise  which  it  conveyed  were  connected  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  presence  of  the  Spirit  was  the  source  at  once  of  the  power 
here  conferred,  and  of  the  qualifications  necessary  for  the  discharge  of 
the  duty  here  enjoined.  And  as  the  Spirit  was  not  given  to  the  apos- 
tles, prelates,  or  presbyters  as  a  distinct  class,  and  to  the  exclusion  of 


SUPPOET  OF  THE  CLERGY.  255 

others,  so  neither  was  the  commission  which  was  founded  on  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  confined  to  them.  The  power,  the  duty,  and  the  promise  of 
the  Spirit  all  go  together.  Unless,  therefore,  we  adopt  the  Romish  doc- 
trine that  the  Spirit  was  given  to  the  apostles  as  a  distinct  and  self- 
perpetuating  order  in  the  Church,  to  flow  mechanically  through  the 
channel  of  that  succession,  a  living  stream  through  a  dead  body,  we 
must  admit  that  the  commission  in  question  was  given  to  the  whole 
Church.  All  the  prerogatives,  duties,  and  promises  which  it  conveys, 
belong  to  the  Church  as  a  living  body  pervaded  in  all  its  parts  by  the 
life-giving  and  life-impelling  Spirit  of  God.  This,  however,  does  not 
imply  that  there  is  no  order  or  subordination  in  the  Church ;  or  that 
there  is  no  diversity  in  the  gifts,  graces,  and  offices  which  the  Spirit 
divides  to  each  one  severally  as  he  wills.  All  are  not  apostles,  all  are 
not  prophets,  or  teachers,  or  workers  of  miracles.  God  is  not  the 
author  of  confusion,  but  of  order  and  peace  in  all  the  churches  of  the 
saints.  The  absence  of  order,  subordination,  and  peace  in  any  body  is 
an  evidence  of  the  absence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Protestant  doc- 
trine, that  the  commission  so  often  referred  to  was  given  to  the  whole 
Church,  is  therefore  perfectly  consistent  with  the  existence  and  prero- 
gatives of  the  ministry,  not  only  as  a  work,  but  as  an  office. 

The  application  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  just  stated,  to  the  subject 
before  us,  is  obvious  and  direct.  If  to  the  Church  as  such  and  as  a 
whole,  the  duty  of  teaching  all  nations  has  been  committed,  then  upon 
the  Church  as  a  whole  rests  the  obligation  to  sustain  those  who  are  di- 
vinely commissioned  in  her  name  and  as  her  organs  for  the  immediate 
discharge  of  that  duty.  On  what  other  ground  do  we  appeal  to  all  our 
members,  young  and  old,  male  and  female,  to  send  forth  and  sustain 
our  missionaries  foreign  and  domestic?  We  do  not  merely  say  to. them 
that  this  is  a  duty  of  benevolence  or  of  Christian  charity,  but  we  tell 
them  it  is  a  command  of  Christ,  a  command  addressed  to  them,  which 
binds  their  conscience,  which  they  cannot  neglect  without  renouncing 
the  authority  of  Christ,  and  thereby  proving  that  they  are  destitute  of 
his  Spirit  and  are  none  of  his.  In  doing  this,  we  certainly  do  right ; 
but  we  obviously  take  for  granted  that  since  the  commission  to  teach 
all  nations  has  been  given  to  the  whole  Church,  the  duty  of  supporting 
those  sent  forth  as  teachers  rests  upon  the  whole  Church  as  a  common 
burden.  The  command  therefore  which  binds  us  to  support  the  gospel 
in  New  Jersey  binds  us  to  sustain  it  in  Wisconsin.  All  the  reasons  of 
the  obligation  apply  to  the  one  case  as  well  as  to  the  other.  And  we 
miserably  fail  of  obedience  to  Christ  if  we  content  ourselves  with  sup- 
porting our  own  pastor,  and  let  others  provide  for  themselves  or  perish, 
as  they  see  fit. 

A  third  consideration  which  leads  to  the  conclusion  for  which  we  are 


256  CHURCH  POLITY. 

now  contending  is,  that  the  ministry  pertains  to  the  whole  Church,  and 
not  primarily  and  characteristically  to  each  particular  congregation. 
When  a  man  is  ordained,  the  office  into  which  he  is  inducted  has  rela- 
tion to  the  Church  as  a  whole.  All  the  prerogatives  and  obligations 
of  that  office  are  conveyed  though  he  has  no  separate  congregation  con- 
fided to  his  care.  A  call  to  a  particular  church  does  not  convey  'the 
ministerial  office,  it  only  gives  authority  to  exercise  that  office  over  a 
particular  people  and  within  a  given  sphere.  The  office  itself  has  far 
wider  relations.  If  it  were  true  that  the  ministerial  office  has  relation 
primarily  and  essentially  to  a  particular  congregation,  so  that  a  man 
can  no  more  be  a  minister  without  a  congregation,  than  a  husband 
without  a  wife  (the  favourite  illustration  of  those  who  adopt  this  view 
of  the  matter)  then  it  would  follow  that  no  man  is  a  minister  except  to 
his  own  congregation,  nor  can  he  perform  any  ministerial  acts  out  of 
his  own  charge ;  that  he  ceases  to  be  a  minister  as  soon  as  he  ceases  to 
be  a  pastor ;  and  that  the  Church  has  no  right  to  ordain  men  as  mis- 
sionaries. These  are  not  only  the  logical  conclusions  from  this  doc- 
trine, they  were  all  admitted  and  contended  for  by  the  early  and  con- 
sistent Independents.  This  view  is  obviously  unscriptural.  The  apostle 
after  teaching  that  the  Church  is  one, — one  body,  having  one  Spirit, 
one  faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism,  adds  that  to  this  one  Church,  the  as- 
cended Saviour  gave  gifts,  viz.,  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors 
and  teachers  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  and  for  the  edifying  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  The  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists  and  teachers  were 
not  given  to  particular  congregations,  but  to  the  Church  generally.  Of 
all  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  named  in  the  New  Testament  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  one  who  sustained  a  special,  much  less  an  exclusive 
relation  to  any  one  congregation.  Paul  did  not,  neither  did  Barnabas, 
nor  Timothy,  nor  Titus.  That  there  were  pastors  in  every  church  is 
of  course  admitted,  but  even  in  their  case,  the  relation  they  sustained 
was  like  that  of  a  captain  of  a  single  ship  in  a  large  fleet.  "While  each 
pastor  had  a  special  relation  to  his  own  charge,  he  had  a  higher  rela- 
tion to  the  whole  Church. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Independents  on  this  subject,  was  true,  it  might 
be  plausibly  argued  that  the  obligation  to  support  a  minister  rested 
solely  on  the  congregation  who  enjoys  his  services.  It  is  altogether  a 
private  affiiir,  analogous  to  the  relation  which  a  man  bears  to  his  own 
family.  But  if  the  true  doctrine  is  that  the  ministry  belongs  to  the 
whole  Church ;  the  whole  Church  is  bound  to  sustain  it.  The  relation 
which  the  officers  of  the  navy  and  army  sustain  to  the  whole  country, 
with  propriety,  throws  the  burden  of  their  support  on  the  country  as  a 
whole.  And  such  is  the  relation  which  ministers  sustain  to  the  Church. 

A  fourth  ai-gument  on  this  subject  is,  that  all  the  reasons  which  are 


SUPPOET  OF  THE  CLEEGY.  257 

given  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  show  that  the  ministry  ought  to  be 
supported,  bear  on  the  Church  as  one  body.  Our  Saviour  says  the 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  But  in  whose  service  does  the  minister 
labour  ?  Who  gave  him  his  commission  ?  In  whose  name  does  he  act  ? 
"Whose  work  is  he  doing  ?  to  Avhom  is  he  responsible  ?  Is  it  not  the 
Church  as  a  whole,  and  not  this  or  that  particular  congregation  ? 
Again,  to  whose  benefit  do  the  fruits  of  his  labour  redound  ?  When 
souls  are  converted,  saints  edified,  children  educated  in  the  fear  of  God, 
is  this  a  local  benefit  ?  Are  we  not  one  body  ?  Has  the  hand  no  in- 
terest in  the  soundness  of  the  foot,  or  the  ear  in  the  well-being  of  the 
eye  ?  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  therefore  of  a  most  unscriptural  isola- 
tion and  severance  of  the  constituent  members  of  Christ's  body,  that  the 
whole  obligation  to  sustain  the  ministry  can  be  thrown  on  each  separate 
congregation.  Again  it  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ  that  those  who  preach 
the  gospel  should  live  by  the  gospel.  This  ordinance  certainly  binds 
those  to  whom  the  gospel  is  given,  to  whose  custody  it  is  committed, 
who  are  charged  with  the  duty  of  sustaining  and  extending  it ;  who 
have  felt  its  power  and  experienced  its  value.  They  are  the  persons 
whom  Christ  honours  by  receiving  gifts  at  their  hands,  for  the  support 
of  his  servants  and  the  promotion  of  his  kingdom.  Consequently  the 
whole  body  of  his  people  have  by  his  ordinance  this  duty  imposed  on 
them  as  a  common  burden  and  a  common  pri^^lege. 

In  the  fifth  place,  this  matter  may  be  argued  from  the  common  prin- 
ciples of  justice.  Our  present  system  is  unjust,  first,  to  the  people. 
Here  are  a  handful  of  Christians  surrounded  by  an  increasing  mass 
of  the  ignorant,  the  erroneous  and  the  wicked.  No  one  will  deny  that 
it  is  of  the  last  importance  that  the  gospel  should  be  regularly  admin- 
istered among  them.  This  is  demanded  not  only  for  the  benefit  of 
those  few  Christians,  but  for  the  instruction  and  conversion  of  the  sur- 
rounding population.  Now  is  it  just,  that  the  burden  of  supporting 
the  ministry  under  these  circumstances  should  be  thrown  exclusively 
on  that  small  and  feeble  company  of  believers  ?  Are  they  alone  in- 
terested in  the  support  and  extension  of  .the  kingdom  of  Christ  among 
them  and  those  around  them?  It  is  obvious  that  on  all  scriptural 
principles,  and  on  all  principles  of  justice,  this  is  a  burden  to  be  borne 
by  the  whole  Church,  by  all  on  whom  the  duty  rests  to  uphold  and 
propagate  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Our  present  system  is  unjust,  in  the 
second  place,  towards  our  ministers.  It  is  not  just  that  one  man 
should  be  suppoi-ted  in  affluence,  and  another  equally  devoted  to  the 
service  of  the  Church,  left  to  struggle  for  the  necessaries  of  life.  As 
before  stated,  we  do  not  contend  for  anything  so  chimerical  as  equal 
salaries  to  all  ministers.  Even  if  all  received  from  the  Church,  as  a 
whole,  the  same  sum,  the  people  would  claim  and  exercise  the  right  to 
17 


258  CHUECH  POLITY. 

give  in  addition  what  they  pleaded  to  their  own  pastor.  We  can  no 
more  make  salaries  equal,  than  we  can  make  Church  edifices  of  the 
same  size  and  cost.  But  while  this  equality  is  neither  desirable  nor 
practicable,  it  is  obviously  unjust  that  the  present  inordinate  inequality 
should  be  allowed  to  continue.  The  hardship  falls  precisely  on  the 
most  devoted  men ;  on  those  who  strive  to  get  along  without  resorting 
to  any  secular  employment.  Those  who  resort  to  teaching,  farming, 
or  speculating  in  land,  in  many  cases  soon  render  themselves  inde- 
pendent. The  way  to  keep  ministers  poor,  is  to  give  them  enough  to 
live  upon.  Observation  in  all  parts  of  the  country  shows  that  it  is 
the  men  with  inadequate  salaries  who  become  rich,  or  at  least  lay  up 
money.  It  is  not,  therefore,  because  we  think  that  the  ministry,  as  a 
body,  would  have  more  of  this  world's  goods  if  adequately  supported 
by  the  Church,  that  we  urge  this  plea  of  just  compensation.  It  is  be- 
cause those  who  do  devote  themselves  to  their  ministerial  work  are  left 
to  contend  with  all  the  harassing  evils  of  poverty,  while  others  of 
their  brethren  have  enough  and  to  spare.  This  we  regard  as  con- 
trary to  justice,  contrary  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  the  express  com- 
mands of  his  word.  Let  the  Presbyterian  Church  ask  itself  whether 
it  has  ever  obeyed  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  that  they  who  preach  the 
gospel  shall  live  by  the  gospel.  It  is  obvious  that  this  never  has 
been  done.  And  if  we  ask,  why  not  ?  we  can  find  no  other  answer 
than  that  we  have  not  adopted  the  right  method.  We  have  left  each 
congregation  to  do  the  best  it  can ;  the  rich  giving  themselves  little 
concern  how  the  poor  succeeded  in  this  necessary  work.  We  do  not 
see  how  the  command  of  Christ  ever  can  be  obeyed,  how  anything 
like  justice  on  this  subject  ever  can  be  done,  until  the  Church  recog- 
nizes the  truth  that  it  is  one  body,  and  therefore  that  it  is  just  as 
obligatory  on  us  to  support  the  gospel  at  a  distance  as  around  our 
own  homes. 

Sixthly,  the  advantages  which  would  be  secured  by  this  plan,  are  a 
strong  argument  in  its  favour.  It  would  secure  a  great  increase  in  the 
amount  of  time  and  labour  devoted  to  ministerial  work.  We  have  no 
means  of  ascertaining  with  accuracy  what  proportion  of  our  ministers 
unite  with  their  sacred  office  some  secular  employment,  nor  what  pro- 
portion of  their  time  is  thus  diverted  from  their  appropriate  duties.  It 
may  be  that  one-third  or  one  half  of  the  time  of  the  ministry  of  our 
Church,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  devoted  to  secular  business.  If  this  esti- 
mate is  any  approximation  to  the  truth  and  it  has  been  made  by  those 
who  have  had  the  best  opportunity  of  forming  a  correct  judgment,  then 
the  efficiency  of  the  ministry  might  be  well  nigh  doubled  if  this  time 
could  be  redeemed  from  the  world  and  devoted  to  study,  to  pastoral 
duties,  and  the  education  of  the  young. 


SUPPOET  OF  THE  CLEKGY.  259 

Again,  it  would  exert  a  most  bent-icial  influence  on  the  character  of 
the  ministry.  How  many  men,  who  from  necessity  engage  in  some 
secular  work,  gradually  become  worldly-minded,  lose  their  interest  in 
the  spiritual  concerns  of  the  Church,  and  come  to  regard  their  minis- 
terial duties  as  of  secondary  importance.  It  is  a  law  of  the  human 
mind  that  it  becomes  assimilated  to  the  objects  to  which  its  attention  is 
principally  directed.  It  is  almost  impossible  for  a  minister  whose  time 
is  mainly  devoted  to  worldly  business,  to  avoid  becoming  more  or  less 
a  worldly  man.  A  very  respectable  clergyman,  advanced  in  life,  who 
had  felt  this  difficulty,  recently  said,  there  was  nothing  about  which 
he  was  more  determined  than  that  if  he  had  his  life  to  live  over  again, 
he  would  never  settle  in  a  congregation  that  did  not  support  "him.  It 
is  very  hard  to  draw  the  line  between  gaining  a  support  and  making 
money.  It  is  difficult  to  discriminate  in  practice  between  what  is  pro- 
per, because  necessary,  and  what  all  admit  to  be  derogatory  to  the 
ministerial  character.  How  often  does  it  happen  that  the  desire  of 
wealth  insinuates  itself  into  the  heart,  under  the  guise  of  the  desire 
for  an  adequate  support.  Without  the  slightest  impeachment  of  any 
class  of  our  brethren,  in  comparison  with  others,  but  simply  assum- 
ing that  they  are  like  other  men  and  other  ministers,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  necessity  of  devoting  a  large  part  of  their  time  to  secular 
employment,  is  injurious  both  to  their  own  spiritual  interests  and  to 
their  usefulness.  Every  thing  indeed  depends  upon  the  motive,  with 
which  this  done.  If  done  as  a  matter  of  self-denial,  in  order  to 
make  the  gospel  of  Christ  without  charge,  its  influence  will  be  sal- 
utary ;  but  if  done  from  any  worldly  motive  it  must,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  bring  leanness  into  the  soul.  It  can  hardly,  there- 
fore, be  doubted  that  few  things,  under  God,  would  more  directly  tend 
to  exalt  the  standard  of  ministerial  character  and  activity  in  our 
Church,  than  a  provision  of  an  adequate  support  for  every  pastor  de- 
voted to  his  work.  How  many  of  our  most  deserving  brethren  would 
the  execution  of  this  plan  relieve  from  anxiety  and  want.  Many  of 
them  are  now  without  the  ordinary  comforts  of  life  ;  harassed  by  fam- 
ily cares,  oppressed  with  difficulty  as  to  the  means  of  supporting 
and  educating  their  children.  It  would  shed  an  unwonted  light  into 
many  a  household,  to  hear  it  announced  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
had  resolved  to  obey  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  that  they  who  preach  the 
gospel  should  live  by  the  gospel.  Such  a  resolution  would  kindle  the 
incense  in  a  thousand  hearts,  and  would  be  abundant  through  the 
thanksgiving  of  many  to  the  glory  of  God. 

Again,  this  plan  would  secure  stability  and  consequent  power  to  the 
institutions  of  religion  in  a  multitude  of  places,  where  every  thing  is 
now  occasional,  uncertain  and  changing.  Our  Church  would  be  thus  en- 


260  CHUECH  POLITY. 

abled  to  present  a  firm  and  steadily  advancing  front.  Congregations 
too  feeble  to-day  to  support  the  gospel  at  all,  would  soon  become,  un- 
der the  steady  culture  thus  afforded  to  them,  able  to  aid  in  sustaining 
others.  A  new  spirit  of  alacrity  and  confidence  Avould  be  infused  into 
the  ministry.  They  would  not  advance  with  a  hesitating  step,  doubt- 
ful whether  those  behind  will  uphold  their  hands.  When  a  mission- 
ary leaves  our  sliores  for  heathen  lands,  he  goes  without  any  misgivings 
as  to  this  point.  He  has  no  fear  of  being  forgot,  and  allowed  to  strug- 
gle for  his  daily  bread,  while  endeavouring  to  bring  the  heathen  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ.  He  knows  that  the  whole  Church  is  pledged  for 
his  support,  and  he  devotes  himself  to  his  work  without  distraction  or 
anxiety.  How  different  is  the  case  with  multitudes  of  our  missionaries 
at  home.  They  go  to  places  where  much  is  to  be  done,  where  constant 
ministerial  labour  is  demanded,  but  they  go  with  no  assurance  of  sup- 
port. The  people  whom  they  serve  may  greatly  need  the  gospel ;  it 
ought  to  be  carried  to  them,  and  urged  ujDon  them,  but  they  care  little 
about  it,  and  are  unwilling  to  sustain  the  messenger  of  God.  The  Church 
does  not  charge  itself  with  his  support.  It  is  true  he  is  labouring  in  her 
service  and  in  the  service  of  her  Lord,  but  he  is  left  to  provide  for  him- 
self, and  live  or  starve  as  the  case  may  be.  This  is  not  the  way  in 
which  a  Church  can  be  vigorously  advanced.  It  is  not  the  way  in 
which  Antichrist  advances  his  kingdom.  No  Romish  priest  plants  a 
hesitating  foot  on  any  unoccupied  ground.  He  knows  he  represents  a 
Church ;  a  body  which  recognizes  its  unity,  and  feels  its  life  in  all  its 
members.  Is  it  right  that  we  should  place  the  cause  of  Christ  under 
such  disadvantage ;  that  we  should  adopt  a  plan  of  ministerial  support, 
which  of  necessity  makes  the  Church  most  feeble  at  the  extremities, 
where  it  ought  to  have  most  alacrity  and  strength  ?  Truly  the  children 
of  this  world  are  wiser  in  their  generation  than  the  children  of  light. 

The  great  recommendation  of  the  plan  for  which  we  contend,  is  that 
it  is  right.  And  if  right  it  must  be  healthful  in  all  its  influences.  If 
the  Church  acts  on  the  principle  that  it  is  one,  it  will  become  one.  If 
from  a  conviction  of  the  brotherhood  of  all  believers,  it  acts  towards 
all  as  brothers,  brotherly  love  will  abound.  The  sense  of  injustice 
which  cannot  fail  on  our  present  plan  to  corrode  the  feelings  of  our 
neglected  brethren,  will  cease  to  exist.  The  sympathies  of  the  more 
prosperous  portions  of  the  Church,  will  become  more  enlisted  in  the 
welfare  of  those  less  highly  favoured.  By  acting  on  the  principle 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  prescribed  for  the  government  of  the 
Church,  the  Church  will  become  more  and  more  the  organ  and  dwell- 
ing place  of  that  Spirit,  who  will  pervade  it  in  all  its  parts  with  the 
glow  of  his  presence,  rendering  it  at  once  pure  and  prosperous,  instinct 
with  the  power  and  radiant  with  the  beauty  of  holiness. 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.      '  261 

We  do  not  anticipate  much  opposition  to  the  principles  which  we 
have  attempted  to  advocate.  We  do  not  expect  to  hear  any  one  deny 
the  unity  of  the  Church ;  nor  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  whole  Church 
to  sustain  and  propagate  the  gospel ;  nor  that  the  ministry  belongs  to 
the  Church  as  one  body ;  nor  that  every  minister  is  engaged  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  whole  Church ;  nor  that  it  is  just,  scrij)tural  and  expedient 
that  they  who  preach  the  gospel  should  live  by  the  gospel.  Nor  do 
we  expect  that  any  one  will  deny  that  it  is  a  logical  sequence  from  these 
principles  that  the  obligation  to  support  the  ministry  rests  as  a  common 
burden  on  the  Church  which  that  ministry  serves.  The  objections  which 
we  anticipate  are  principally  these.  First,  that  there  are  many  ineffi- 
cient men  in  the  ministry  who  ought  not  to  be  supported  by  the  Church, 
and  who  need  the  stimulus  of  dependence  on  their  congregations  to 
make  them  work.  In  answer  to  this  objection  we  would  say,  that  we 
believe  the  difficulty  is  greatly  over-estimated,  and  that  the  inefficien- 
cy complained  of  arises  in  a  great  measure  from  the  necessity  which 
so  many  of  our  ministers  labour  under  of  providing  for  their  own  sup- 
port. There  is  indeed  no  plan  which  is  not  liable  to  abuse.  But  we 
have  in  this  case  all  the  security  which  other  Churches  have  who  act 
on  the  principle  for  which  we  contend.  We  have  the  security  arising 
from  the  fidelity  of  sessions  in  guarding  admissions  to  the  Church;  in 
the  judgment  of  presbyteries  in  selecting  and  training  men  for  the 
ministry,  in  ordaining  them  to  the  sacred  office,  and  in  superintending 
them  when  they  come  to  discharge  its  duties.  We  have  the  security 
which  the  Board  of  Missions  now  have  for  the  fidelity  and  efficiency 
of  those  who  are  engaged  in  its  service.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
plan  contemplated  does  not  propose  to  render  the  minister  independent 
of  his  congregation.  The  principal  part  of  his  support,  if  a  pastor, 
must,  in  most  cases  at  least,  come  from  them.  It  is  only  proposed 
that  the  Board  of  Missions  should  be  authorized  and  enabled  so  to  en- 
large their  appropriations  as  to  secure  an  adequate  support  to  every 
minister  devoted  to  his  work. 

A  more  serious  objection  is  the  expense.  In  answer  to  this,  we 
would  ask  whether  it  would  require  as  large  a  portion  of  the  income 
of  believers  as  by  divine  command  was  devoted  to  this  object  under 
the  old  dispensation  ?  Is  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  less  valuable, 
or  less  dear  to  our  hearts  than  the  religion  of  Moses  to  the  hearts  of 
the  Israelites?  Would  it  require  a  tithe  of  the  sum  which  the  heathen 
pay  for  the  su^jport  of  their  priests  and  temples  ?  Would  it  cost  Pres- 
byterians in  America  more  than  it  costs  Presbyterians  in  Scotland, 
or  more  than  it  costs  our  Methodist  brethren  ?  What  ought  to  be  done 
can  be  done.  What  others  do,  we  can  do.  AVhat  the  cause  needs 
are,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  two  things,  an  intelligent  comprehension 


262  CHUECH  POLITY. 

of  the  grounds  of  the  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  and  some  man 
or  men  to  take  the  thing  in  hand  and  urge  it  forward. 

§  4.    Warrant  and  Theory  of  Ruling  Eldersliip.  [»] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  cliap.  v. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  116.] 

I.  Kuling  elders  are  the  representatives  of  the  people.  It  is  well 
known  that,  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  people  had  great  authority 
in  the  theocratical  government.  They  were,  indeed,  originally  and 
properly  the  chief  depositaries  of  the  governing  power;  they  were  con- 
vened and  consulted  on  all  important  occasions,  and  without  their  con- 
sent nothing  could  lawfully  be  done.  In  the  institution  of  the  Christian 
Church,  this  principle  of  popular  control  was  clearly  recognised.  The 
epistles  are  all,  with  few  exceptions,  addressed  to  the  people ;  the  apos- 
tles, presbyters  and  brethren  were  united  in  the  decision  of  important 
questions :  the  people  chose  their  own  Church  rulers,  concurred  in  acts 
of  discipline  even  when  exercised  by  the  apostles,  (see  1  Cor.  ch.  vi.). 
It  is  also  admitted  that  this  right  of  the  people  to  take  part  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  was  constantly  recognised  for  several  centuries 
after  Christ.  Even  as  late  as  the  time  of  Cyprian,  we  find  that  zealous 
champion  of  prelacy,  admitting  that  he  could  properly  do  nothing 
without  the  presbyters  and  the  people. 

The  power  thus  inhering  in  the  people,  they  exercised  generally 
through  representatives,  chosen  by  themselves.  This  was  so  common  and 
familiar  a  mode  of  exercising  their  prerogative  of  ruling  that  we  find  in 
the  Old  Testament  the  expressions,  "the  whole  congregation,"  and  "the 
elders  of  the  congregation,"  interchanged  as  meaning  the  same  thing. 
What  the  elders  of  the  people  did,  or  said,  the  people  are  represented 
as  having  said  or  done.  And  in  later  times,  the  governing  body  among 
the  people  of  God  was  composed  of  priests,  Levites,  and  elders  of  the 
people.  So  also  in  the  Christian  Church  the  principle  of  the  people 
acting  by  their  representatives,  was  introduced,  we  doubt  not,  by  the 
apostles  themselves.  This  appears  plain  from  the  titles  given  to  cer- 
tain Church  officers,  from  the  usage  of  the  synagogue,  and  from  the 
custom  of  the  early  centuries. 

These  two  principles  of  popular  control  and  of  the  exercise  of  the 
power  which  belongs  to  the  people  through  representatives  chosen  by 
themselves,  gives  to  Presbytcrianism  its  distinctive  character.  In  our 
system  the  people  have  not  only  the  right  to  elect  their  own  Church 
officers,  but  they  have  controlling  influence  in  the  government  of  the 
Church;  exercising  that  influence  through  the  elders,  who  are  their 
representatives.     This  is  the  distinctive  character  of  the  eldership. 

[*  A  pamphlet  entitled  "  The  Elder  Question,"  and  signed  "  Oeneva."'\ 


WARKANT  AND  THEOEY  OF  RULING  ELDERSHIP,        263 

This  is  evident  from  the  formal  definition  of  the  office  contained  in  our 
Form  of  Government,  (ch.  iii.  §  2.)  "  The  ordinary  and  perpetual 
officers  in  the  Church  are  bishops  or  pastors,  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  usually  styled  ruling  elders,  and  deacons."  Again,  (ch.  v.) 
"  Ruling  elders  are  properly  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  chosen 
by  them  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline  in 
conjunction  with  pastors  or  ministers.  This  office  has  been  understood 
by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  Churches,  to  be  designated 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  title  of  governments,  and  of  those  who 
rule  well,  but  do  not  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine." 

In  the  standards  of  the  Scotch  Church,  speaking  of  officers,  it  is 
said  some  are  extraordinary,  "  others  ordinary,  as  pastors,  teachers,  and 
other  church  governors  and  deacons."  p.  565.  Again :  "  As  there  were 
in  the  Jewish  Church  elders  of  the  people  joined  with  the  priests  and 
Levites  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  so  Christ,  who  has  instituted 
government  and  governors  ecclesiastical  in  the  Church,  hath  furnished 
some  in  his  Church,  besides  the  ministers  of  the  word,  with  gifts  for 
government,  and  with  commission  to  execute  the  same,  when  called 
thereunto,  who  are  to  join  with  the  ministers  in  the  government  of  the 
Church;  which  officers  Reformed  Churches  commonly  call  elders." 
pp.  572,  573. 

"A  Presbytery  consisteth  of  ministers  of  the  word,  and  such  other 
public  officers  as  are  agreeable  to  and  warranted  by  the  word  of  God 
to  be  Church  governors,  to  join  with  the  ministers  in  the  government 
of  the  Church."  p.  578. 

"Pastors  and  teachers,  and  other  Church  officers,  (as  also  other  fit 
persons  when  it  shall  be  deemed  expedient)  are  members  of  those 
assemblies  which  we  call  synodical,  where  they  have  a  lawful  calling 
thereunto."  p.  582. 

Ruling  elders,  then,  are  "  public  officers,"  "  representatives  of  the 
people,"  chosen  by  them  to  join  with  ministers  in  the  government  of 
the  Church. 

II.  This  view  of  the  office  of  elder  gives  it  great  honour.  The  peo- 
ple of  God  receive  in  the  Bible  the  highest  titles  of  dignity.  They  are 
"  the  body  of  Christ,"  "  the  temple  of  God,"  "  priests  and  kings ; "  min- 
isters are  their  servants  for  Christ's  sake.  Even  angels  are  their  min- 
istering spirits.  To  be  their  representatives,  to  act  in  their  name,  is  as 
high  an  honour  as  the  Scriptures  anywhere  attribute  to  any  class  of 
Church  rulers  as  such. 

HI.  This  view  of  the  office  places  the  divine  right  of  ruling  elders 
on  a  sure  and  satisfactory  foundation.  The  people,  as  remarked  above, 
have  the  right  to  co-operate  in  all  acts  of  discipline  and  government. 
This  privilege  was  granted  by  Christ,  recognized  in  the  early  ages  of 


264         •  CHUECH  POLITY. 

the  Church,  and  re-asserted  by  Protestants  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. This  right,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  they  exercise  through  officers 
chosen  by  themselves  as  their  representatives.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as 
the  people  have  this  prerogative,  their  representatives  appear  in  eccle- 
siastical courts,  and  take  part  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  not  by 
courtesy,  but  as  a  matter  of  right. 

IV.  The  power  which  this  view  of  their  office  attributes  to  the  el- 
dership, is  not  only  great,  but  controlling.  In  the  primary  Church 
court,  or  session,  they  are  always  the  majority,  and  in  all  other  courts 
they  are,  as  a  general  rule,  as  numerous  as  the  ministers.  Nothing 
can  be  done  without  their  concurrence.  They  may  admit  and  exclude 
from  the  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  ministers ;  they  may  even  secure 
the  admission  or  deposition  of  ministers,  in  opj^osition  to  the  pastors. 
For  if  in  any  presbytery,  the  elders  being  more  numerous  than  the 
clergy,  should  vote  for  the  ordination  of  a  man,  and  all  the  ministers 
against  it,  he  must  be  ordained.  In  all  Church  courts,  therefore,  the 
people,  by  their  representatives  have  an  effective,  and  in  many  cases  a 
controlling  power. 

V.  The  definition  given  in  our  standards  of  the  ruling  elders  as 
representatives  of  the  people,  determines  the  nature  and  extent  of  their 
powers.  These  powers  cannot  be  learnt  from  the  title  elder,  because 
that  is  ambiguous,  being  applied  to  two  distinct  classes  of  officers.  In 
some  of  the  early  Churches  these  officers  had  distinct  titles,  viz.  either 
presbyters  and  delegates,  or  presbyters  and  seniores  plebis,  who  are 
expressly  distinguished  from  each  other.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
ruling  elders  are  never  called  presbyters  in  our  book,  and  the  proper 
scriptural  title  for  them  is  not  presbyter,  but  "  governments."  Calvin, 
in  his  Institutes,  Lib.  iv.  c.  5.  §  8,  says,  "  In  calling  those  who  govern 
in  the  Church,  indiscriminately,  bishops,  presbyters,  pastors,  and  min- 
isters, I  have  followed  the  examj^le  of  the  Scriptures,  which  use  these 
terms  without  distinction,  for  they  give  the  title  bishop  to  all  who  are 
invested  with  the  ministry  of  the  word."  Having  proved  this  from 
Titus  i.  5,  Phil.  i.  1,  Acts  xx.  17,  he  adds,  "It  is  to  be  observed  that 
we  have  hitherto  spoken  only  of  those  offices  which  are  concerned  in 
the  ministry  of  the  word ;  nor  does  Paul  mention  any  other  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  Ephesians,  which  we  have  cited.  But  in  Rom.  xii. 
7,  and  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  he  enumerates  others,  as  powers,  gift  of  healing, 
&c.  &c.  Two  of  these  are  permanent  offices,  government,  and  care  of 
the  poor.  Governors  I  suppose  to  have  been  elders  (seniores)  chosen 
from  among  the  people,  who  presided  with  the  bishops  over  the  cor- 
rection of  manners  and  the  exercise  of  discipline."  According  to  this, 
there  were  two  classes  of  officers,  the  one  who  both  ruled  and  preached, 
and  to  Avhom  the  Scriptures  give  the  titles,  bishops,  presbyters,  pastors, 


WARKANT  AND  THEORY  OF  RULING  ELDERSHIP.        265 

ministers ;  and  the  other  called  governments,  who  were  seniores  ex  pie- 
be  delecti,  elders  chosen  from  the  people,  to  join  with  the  former  class 
in  the  government  of  the  Church.  This  is  precisely  the  system  of  our 
book,  in  which  the  title  Bishop  or  Presbyter  is  never  given  to  any  but 
ministers  of  the  word.  Much  confusion  has  arisen  from  the  use  of  the 
"word  elder  and  presbyter  as  synonymous ;  and  many  false  conclusions 
have  been  drawn  from  the  assumption  that  because  both  words  mean 
an  old  man,  therefore,  every  elder  is  a  presbyter,  and  may  do  what- 
ever a  presbyter  may  do.  The  same  argument  would  piove  that  every 
alderman  is  a  senator,  and  every  senator  an  alderman. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  from  the  ambiguous  title,  elder,  but  from  the 
authoritative  definitions  of  the  nature  and  duties  of  the  office,  we  are 
to  deduce  the  powers  of  the  ruling  elder.  Elders  are  declared  to  be 
the  representatives  of  the  people.  That  this  is  their  •distinctive  char- 
acter is  plain,  because  ministers  are  never  so  called,  and  because  elders 
are  so  designated  for  the  very  purpose  of  distinguishing  them  from 
another  class  of  oflicers.  It  is  also  plain  that  their  powers  flow  from 
their  distinctive  character  as  representatives  of  the  people,  and  cannot 
extend  beyond  the  limits  fixed  by  that  relation.  A  representative  is 
one  who  acts  for  another,  who  does  for  him  what  he  has  a  right  to  do 
in  his  own  name.  It  is  evident  that  the  representative  cannot  do  what 
his  constituents  are  not  authorized  to  do.  Congress  has  the  right  to 
make  laws,  because  the  people,  in  this  country,  whom  they  represent, 
have  all  the  attributes  of  sovereignty.  It  is  equally  evident  that  the 
power  of  the  representative  is  not  necessarily  co-extensive  with  that 
of  his  constituents;  while  he  cannot  do  what  they  have  no  authority 
to  do,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  can  do  all  that  they  may  be  entitled 
to  perform.  His  power  depends  upon  the  extent  of  his  commission. 
His  authority  may  be  limited,  as  in  the  case  of  Congress  and  of  our  Gen- 
erel  Assembly,  by  a  written  constitution,  or  it  may  be  limited  by  a 
higher  authority ;  as  in  the  case  of  the  Church  rulers,  by  the  word 
of  God.  Hence,  it  no  more  follows  that  ruling  elders,  as  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  can  exercise  all  the  functions  which  inhere  pri- 
marily in  the  people,  than  that  Congress  may  do  all  that  the  people 
are  assumed  to  have  a  right  to  do.  Because  as  the  power  of  Congress 
is  limited  by  the  constitution  of  the  country,  so  the  power  of  ruling 
elders  is  limited  by  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  by  the  word  of 
God.  According  to  Protestants,  all  Church  power  vests  primarily  in 
the  people.  But  while  this  power  vests  primarily  in  the  whole 
Church,  it  is  to  be  exercised  through  certain  organs,  or  officers, 
whose  qualifications  and  powers  are  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God. 

It  is  admitted  that  ministers  constitute  one  class  of  Church  officers. 
Their  qualifications  are  given  minutely  in  the  Scriptures.     They  must 


266  CHURCH  POLITY. 

be  blameless  in  faith,  manners,  and  report ;  they  must  be  apt  to  teach ; 
fit  to  rule ;  and  what  they  have  received  they  are  enjoined  to  commit 
unto  faithful  men  who  may  be  able  to  teach  others  also.  Their  pow- 
ers, therefore,  as  specified  and  granted  in  the  word  of  God  are,  teach- 
ing, (which  includes  the  administration  of  the  sacraments;)  ruling, 
and  commissioning  faithful  men.  These  powers  God  has  joined -to- 
gether, so  that  he  who  has  one  of  them,  has  all.  The  very  fact  that 
these  duties  and  powers  are  committed  to  a  certain  class  of  officers, 
proves  that  they  are  not  to  be  exercised  by  the  people  themselves. 
But  while  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that  these  powers  are  granted 
to  a  class  of  officers  distinct  from  the  people,  they  also  teach  that  the 
people  have  a  right  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  their  own  offi- 
cers, to  determine  who  they  shall  be,  and  to  take  part  with  them  in 
the  government  of  the  Church.  And  this  right  they  exercise  partly 
in  person,  as  in  the  election  of  their  Church  rulers,  and  partly  by  their 
representatives,  who  appear  in  their  name  in  all  Church  courts,  to 
deliberate  and  vote  on  all  questions  which  may  come  before  them. 

Thus  while  all  power  vests  primarily  in  the  whole  Church,  certain 
functions  of  that  power,  viz:  teaching,  and  commissioning  faithful 
men,  are  committed  by  Scripture  and  our  constitution  to  one  class  of 
officers ;  while  co-operation  in  all  acts  of  government  and  discipline 
belongs  to  the  people  or  their  representatives.  And  as,  in  the  ordinary 
state  of  the  Church,  the  people  have  neither  by  the  word  of  God,  nor 
by  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  the  right  to  preach,  administer  the 
sacraments,  or  ordain,  so  neither  have  their  representatives. 

VI.  This  view  of  the  nature  and  duties  of  the  office  of  ruling  elder, 
is  everywhere  asserted  or  assumed  in  our  standards.  This  is  evident, 
1.  From  the  names  or  titles  given  to  this  class  of  officers.  They  are 
never  called  ministers,  bishops,  stewards,  or  pastors.  Nor  are  they 
ever  called  without  qualification  presbyters.  As  the  Greek  word  for 
deacon  is  used  in  a  general  sense  for  all  Church  officers,  and  yet  is  the 
sj)ecific  title  of  one  particular  class  of  officers ;  so  the  word  presbyter 
may  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense,  including  even  apostles,  and  yet  is  the 
definite  title  of  ordinary  ministers  of  the  word,  and  is  never  applied  in 
its  specific  sense,  and  without  qualification  to  any  who  are  not  minis- 
ters. The  jDroper  title  of  the  ruling  elder,  according  to  our  book,  is, 
"  representatives  of  the  people."  Or  as  it  is  in  the  Scottish  standards, 
"public  officers,"  "Church  governors,"  seniores  plebis,  "elders  of  the 
people ; "  guhernatores  ex  plebe  delecti  as  Calvin  expresses  it.  2.  From 
the  formal  and  authoritative  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  office. 
Ruling  elders  are  declared  to  be  representatives  of  the  people,  chosen 
to  exercise  government  and  discipline  in  conjunction  with  pastors  and 
ministers.     3.  From  the  nature  of  the  duties  and  powers  assigned  to 


WAKRANT  AND  THEORY  OF  RULING  ELDERSHIP.        267 

them.  Nothing  is  ever  attributed  to  them  which  does  not  suppose  and 
arise  out  of  their  representative  character,  and  comport  with  the  limi- 
tation of  their  office  to  participation  in  the  government  of  the  Church. 
They  are  members  of  the  Church  session  "  for  the  spiritual  govern- 
ment of  the  congregation."  Form  of  Government,  ch.  9,  sec.  6.  They 
are  delegated  to  sit  in  presbytery,  synod,  and  the  General  Assembly ; 
they  appear  in  these  bodies  as  representatives  of  the  people ;  for  it  is 
said,  "  every  congregation,  which  has  a  stated  pastor,  has  a  right  to  be 
represented  by  one  elder,"  ch.  10,  see.  3.  The  elder,  therefore,  repre- 
sents the  congregation ;  he  does  not  represent  his  fellow-elders  in  the 
session,  but  the  people.  Wherever  he  appears,  he  appears  in  that  dis- 
tinctive character ;  and  as  representing  the  people  of  God,  he  has  a 
right  to  deliberate  and  vote  on  all  questions  which  come  before  the 
body  to  which  he  is  sent. 

VII.  The  opposite  theory  concerning  this  office  is  inconsistent  with 
our  standards  and  subversive  of  Presbyterianism. 

1.  By  teaching  that  ministers  and  elders  are  of  the  same  order,  it 
merges  into  one,  offices  which  our  constitution  and  the  word  of  God 
declare  to  be  distinct.  The  permanent  officers  of  the  Church  are  stated 
in  our  book  to  be,  ministers  of  the  word,  representatives  of  the  people, 
and  deacons.  By  calling  the  second  class  "  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple," they  are  as  much  distinguished  from  the  first  class  as  from  the 
third ;  and  it  is  as  clearly  denied  that  ministers  are  representatives  as 
that  deacons  are.  But  the  new  theory  affirms  that  ministers  and 
elders  appear  in  presbytery  on  precisely  the  same  ground ;  and  sit  and 
act  as  representatives.  Now  there  is  a  sense  in  which  ministers  may 
be  said  to  represent  the  people,  inasmuch  as  they  exercise  a  function 
included  in  the  general  commission  given  to  the  Church ;  but  elders 
are  representatives  in  a  very  different  sense,  as  they  are  chosen  to  act 
in  the  name  of  the  people,  and  to  join  with  ministers  in  doing  those 
things  which  the  people  themselves,  as  distinguished  from  the  minis- 
ters, have  a  right  to  do.  To  affirm  that  both  classes  of  officers  are  in 
the  same  sense  representatives,  is  to  destroy  the  peculiar,  distinctive 
character  and  value  of  the  eldership. 

2.  This  theory  subverts  our  system  also  by  teaching  that  the  minis- 
ter obtains  his  right  to  rule  and  to  sit  in  presbytery,  by  his  election  to 
the  eldership  by  a  particular  congregation,  and  in  virtue  of  his  repre- 
sentative character ;  whereas  the  word  of  God  and  our  Book  teach 
that  the  right  to  rule,  to  preach,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to 
ordain,  belongs  to  every  minister  in  virtue  of  his  office.  If  a  man  is 
ordained  a  presbyter,  he  has,  by  authority  of  Scripture,  all  these  rights ; 
and  he  cannot  be  deprived  of  the  one  any  more  than  of  the  others.  He 
has  indeed  no  right  to  exercise  his  authority  either  to  preach  or  to  rule 


2(38  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

in  a  particular  congregation  without  their  consent;  but  their  election  no 
more  makes  him  a  ruler  than  it  makes  him  a  preacher.     Though  he 
may  not  be  a  pastor  of  a  particular  congregation,  and  consequently 
have  no  right  to  act  as  such,  yet  as  a  member  of  presbytery  he  has  the 
right  to  rule,  because  such  right  belongs  to  his  office,  and  because  all 
the  churches  under  the  supervision  of  that  presbytery  consented  to  his 
exercising  his  functions   as  a  member  of   presbytery,  when,  by  their 
representatives,  they  consented  to  his  ordination.     The  opposite  doc- 
trine on  this  particular  point,  viz.,  that  no  man  should  be  ordained  sine 
titulo,  or  can  be  a  presbyter  except  in  virtue  of  his  election  by  a  particu- 
lar Church,  arose  partly  out  of  the  jealousy  of  the  clergy,  who  feared  in- 
trusion on  their  own  bounds,  and  partly  out  of  the  obvious  impropriety 
of  such  ordinations  in  countries  where  the  whole  ground  is  occupied  by 
settled  ministers.     But  to  convert  this  rule  of  expediency  into  a  princi- 
ple ;   to  say  that  because  a  man  should  not  be  made  a  presbyter  when 
he  has  no  sphere  for  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  his  office,  he  there- 
fore owes  that  office  to  his  having  a  particular  sphere  for  its  exercise; 
and  that  he  cannot  be  a  presbyter  except  in  virtue  of  his  connection 
with  a  particular  church,  is  as  much  as  to  say  a  man  cannot  be  a  phy- 
sician without  a  prescribed  number  of  patients,  or  a  captain  if  not  in 
actual  command  of  a  ship,  or  a  general  unless  when  at  the  head  of  a 
brigade.  Owen  consistently  carries  out  this  doctrine,  and  maintains  that 
as  no  man  can  be  a  bishop  or  presbyter  but  in  relation  to  a  particular 
congregation,  no  Church  has  a  right  to  ordain  a  man  to  preach  to  the 
heathen  (Works,  vol.  xx.  p.  457  ).     When  a  theory  comes  to  such  an 
issue,  it  may  fairly  be  assumed  to  have  broken  its  neck.     In  the  Apos- 
tolic Church  all  ministers  ruled.     They  met  together  with  the  apostles 
and  brethren  to  decide  important  questions;  they  formed  churches, 
they  ordained  elders,  and  yet  not  one  in  ten  of  those  ministers  was  a 
pastor,  or  sustained  any  special  or  permanent  relation  to  any  particular 
church.     Presbyterians  do  not  believe  that  Timothy  was  the  pastor  of 
Ephesus,  or  Titus  the  bishop  of  Crete. 

3.  Again  this  theory  subverts  our  system  by  making  all  elders  min- 
isters. By  common  consent  bishop  and  presbyter  are  convertible  terms. 
If  a  man  is  a  presbyter,  he  is  a  bishop,  and  if  he  is  a  bishop,  he  is  a 
presbyter.  Even  prelatists  admit  this  to  be  true  as  far  as  the  language 
of  the  Bible  is  concerned.  But  according  to  the  Scriptures,  a  bishop 
is  and  must  be  a  teacher ;  he  must  be  "  apt  to  teach."  Titus  was  com- 
manded to  ordain  presbyters  if  any  be  blameless ;  "  for  a  bisJiop  must  be 
blameless  as  a  steward  of  God,  ....  holding  fast  the  faithful  word 
as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both  to 
exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers."  Titus  i.  5-9.  Nothing  is 
plainer  from  Scripture  and  antiquity  than  that  presbyters  were  bishops, 


WAEEANT  AND  THEORY  OF  RULING  ELDERSHIP.        269 

and  that  bishops  were  rulers,  teachers  and  ordainer.  This  is  our  con- 
stant argument  against  Episcopalians,  and  it  is  so  decisive  that  the 
most  learned  and  candid  of  that  class  admit  its  conclusive  character. 
That  is,  they  admit  that  if  a  man  is  a  presbyter,  he  is,  as  far  as  Scrip- 
ture and  the  early  Church  are  concerned,  a  teacher,  ruler  and  ordainer. 
After  having  proved  this,  and  rested  our  cause  upon  it,  as  against  pre- 
latists,  we  cannot  turn  round  and  say  that  a  man's  being  a  presbyter  is 
no  proof  that  he  is  a  teacher  and  ordainer.  If  a  presbyter,  he  is  by 
our  own  showing  a  bishop,  and  if  a  bishop,  then  both  a  preacher  and 
an  ordainer.  To  maintain  therefore  that  ruling  elders  and  ministers 
are  of  the  same  order,  that  they  have  the  same  presbyterate,  is  to  main- 
tain that  elders  are  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  We  are 
commanded  not  to  make  a  man  a  presbyter  unless  he  is  "apt  to 
teach ; "  we  are  therefore  shut  up  by  this  new  doctrine  to  abolish  the 
office  of  ruling  elder ;  we  are   required  to  make  them   all  preachers. 

4.  Again,  the  inconsistency  of  the  new  theory  with  our  standards, 
becomes  perfectly  glaring  when  compared  with  the  chapter  of  the 
Form  of  Government  which  treats  of  the  ordination  of  ruling  elders. 
The  theory  assumes  that  elders  are  as  much  presbyters  as  ministers 
are ;  that  ordination  to  the  presbyterate  is  the  act  of  the  presbytery ; 
that  if  a  man  is  ordained  a  ruling  elder  he  needs  no  further  ordina- 
tion when  he  becomes  a  minister.  Compare  all  this  with  Ch.  xiii.,  of 
the  Form  of  Government.  It  is  there  said:  1.  That  the  congregation 
shall  elect  ruling  elders.  2.  That  the  minister,  after  sermon,  shall 
state  the  warrant  and  nature  of  the  office.  3.  He  shall  propose  cer- 
tain questions,  first  to  the  candidate,  and  then  to  the  people.  4.  When 
these  questions  are  satisfactorily  answered :  "  The  minister  shall  pro- 
ceed to  set  apart  the  candidate,  by  prayer,  to  the  office  of  ruling  el- 
der (or  deacon,  as  the  case  may  be,)  and  shall  give  to  him  and  the 
congregation  an  exhortation  suited  to  the  occasion."  Here  it  is  to  be 
remarked,  first,  that  the  whole  chapter  relates  to  deacons  as  much  as 
to  elders.  It  prescribes  the  form  in  which  "  elders  and  deacons "  are 
to  be  ordained.  And,  secondly,  the  ordination  is  not  the  act  of  a 
presbytery,  but  of  one  individual  minister.  This  cannot  be  evaded 
by  saying  that  the  minister  acts  in  the  name  of  the  session,  or  parochi- 
al presbytery,  because  the  book  contemplates  the  case  of  the  ordina- 
tion of  elders  when  no  session  exists.  Nor  will  it  avail  to  say  that 
the  minister  acts  in  the  name  of  the  presbytery ;  for  this  is  not  only 
gratuitous  and  without  evidence,  but  is  in  contradiction  with  the  fact. 
Not  one  word  is  said  of  the  presbytery  in  the  whole  context.  The 
presbytery  is  not  at  all  brought  into  view  in  the  whole  service;  it 
is  as  purely  a  ministerial  act  as  the  administration  of  baptism  or  of 
the  Lord's  supper.     The  theory  therefore  breaks  down  entirely.     It 


27'0  CHUECH  POLITY. 

cannot  by  possibility  be  reconciled  with  this  chapter.  Nothing  is 
said  of  the  imposition  of  hands,  nor  of  the  co-operation  either  of 
the  session  or  presbytery  in  the  act  of  ordination.  Yet  this  is  part 
of  our  system  to  which  we  are  as  much  bound  to  adhere  as  to  the 
method  prescribed  for  ordaining  ministers.  The  error  lies  not  in  say- 
ing that,  according  to  our  system,  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter 
must  be  by  a  presbytery;  but  in  saying  that  elders  are  presbyters 
in  the  same  sense  Avith  ministers.  If  they  are,  they  must  be  or- 
dained in  the  same  way;  but  in  point  of  fact,  the  book  prescribes 
a  different  way ;  and  therefore  the  two  classes  of  officers  are  not  of 
the  same  order.  A  man  who  is  ordained  a  ruling  elder  does  not 
become  a  presbyter,  so  as  not  to  need  ordination  by  a  presbytery, 
when  he  becomes  a  minister.  We  get  rid  of  all  these  contradic- 
tions by  adhering  to  our  book.  Ministers  are  stewards,  bishops, 
presbyters ;  elders  are  the  representatives  of  the  people.  The  former 
must  be  ordained  by  the  presbytery;  the  latter  must  be  ordained 
by  the  minister  in  the  presence  of  the  people. 

6.  The  new  theory  is  only  a  modified  system  of  prelacy.  It  as- 
serts that  elders  are  bishops,  presbyters,  ministers.  Yet  the  pasto- 
ral office  is  declared  to  be  "the  first  in  dignity  and  usefulness." 
The  pastor  is  the  standing  moderator  of  the  session  composed  of 
bishops  or  presbyters;  he  is  not  amenable  to  them;  cannot  be 
tried  by  them;  he  ordains  them.  What  becomes  then  of  our  min- 
isterial parity?  What  is  prelacy,  if  this  superiority  of  one  minis- 
ter to  others  is  not  one  of  its  essential  elements?  This  doctrine,  if 
introduced  into  our  system,  therefore  vitiates  its  whole  nature. 

6.  There  is,  however,  a  different  element  in  this  theory  which 
legitimately  leads  to  Congregationalism.  It  makes  ministers  and  el- 
ders sit  in  Church  courts  as  representatives  of  the  people,  and  be- 
ing of  the  same  order  the  Church  session  is  a  competent  ordaining 
body,  capable  of  perpetuating  itself.  This  is  very  much  the  plan 
on  which  the  New  England  churches  were  originally  organized.  In 
the  chapter  on  Congregationalism,  in  Baird's  recent  work  on  "  Reli- 
gion in  America,"  the  writer  of  the  chapter,  who  is  said  to  be  a  dis- 
tinguished Congregational  minister,  says:  "The  officers  are  of  two 
sorts,  ciders  and  deacons.  When  the  Congregational  churches  of 
New  England  were  first  organized,  two  centuries  ago,  the  plan  was 
that  each  church  should  have  two  or  more  elders ;  one  a  pastor,  ano- 
ther charged  with  similar  duties,  under  the  title  of  teacher,  the  third 
ordained  to  his  office  like  the  other  two,  a  ruling  elder,  who  with  his 
colleagues,  presided  over  the  discipline  and  order  of  the  church,  but 
took  no  part  in  the  official  and  authoritative  preaching  of  the  word, 
or  in  the  administration  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.     Thus  it 


EIGHTS  OF  EULTNG  ELDEES.  271 

•was  intended  that  eacli  Church  should  have  within  itself  a  presbyte- 
ry, or  clerical  body,  perpetuating  itself  by  the  ordination  of  those 
who  should  be  elected  to  fill  successive  vacancies."  As  far  as  it  goes, 
we  have  here  the  essential  features  of  the  new  theory.  Each  congrega- 
tion chooses  a  body  of  men,  who  are  all  equally  presbyters,  having  the 
same  ordination  and  vested  with  the  power  to  ordain.  This  system 
rapidly  subsided  into  the  form  in  which  Congregationalism  now  exists 
in  Massachusetts.  This  new  doctrine,  therefore,  if  we  may  learn  any- 
thing from  history,  must  either,  in  virtue  of  its  making  elders,  bishops 
and  ministers,  and  yet  setting  the  pastor  up  as  their  official  superior, 
issue  in  prelacy ;  or  in  virtue  of  making  both  ministers  and  elders,  in 
the  same  sense  presbyters  and  representatives  of  iho.  people,  issue  in 
congregational  independency. 

The  doctrine  of  our  standards  is  simple  and  consistent.  Ruling 
elders  are  not  bishops,  or  ministers ;  they  are  not  presbyters  in  the 
same  sense  as  preachers  are,  but  governors,  "representatives  of  the 
people,"  appointed  to  take  part  with  ministers  in  the  government  of 
the  Church.  They  are  entitled  to  be  present  in  every  Church  court, 
with  full  authority  to  deliberate  and  vote.  This  view  puts  great 
honour  upon  the  office ;  it  establishes  its  divine  right ;  it  invests  it  with 
great  authority ;  it  defines  its  duties ;  it  harmonizes  with  our  whole 
system,  and  is  every  where  asserted  or  assumed  in  our  standards. 
Whereas  the  opposite  doctrine,  by  making  elders  bishops,  makes  them 
of  divine  right  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  as  well  as  or- 
dainers,  and  thus  subverts  our  whole  system  of  government,  and  tends, 
by  a  logical  necessity,  either  to  prelacy  or  Congregationalism. 

§  5.    Bights  of  Ruling  Elders.  [*] 

\^Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  v. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  116.] 

Rights  of  Ruling  Elders.     By  Calvin.     The  Presbyterian.     Nos.  614 — 618. 
Rights  of  Ruling  Elders.    By  Presbyter.     The  Presbyterian.     Nos.  621—626. 

The  subject  discussed  in  the  series  of  papers  above  mentioned,  has 
assumed  an  importance  which  forces  the  consideration  of  it  on  all  the 
friends  of  our  Church.  The  question  at  issue  is :  Have  ruling  elders 
the  right  to  join  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  ordination  of  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  ?  Those  who  answer  in  the  affirmative  say  that  there 
are  but  two  orders  in  the  ministry,  elders  and  deacons :  of  the  first 
order,  there  are  two  classes  invested  with  different  offices,  though  be- 
longing to  the  same  order ;  to  the  one  class  belongs  the  function  of 
ruling,  to  the  other  those  of  ruling,  teaching  and  administration  of  the 
sacraments.     "We  hold,"  says  Presbyter,  "to  an  identity  of  order,  but 

[*  Article,  same  title,  JVincetow  Review,  1843,  p.  313.] 


272  CHUECH  POLITY. 

diversity  of  office."  Presbyterial  ordination  admits  tlie  recipient  to 
the  order  of  elders  or  presbyters ;  election  by  the  people,  or  installation 
by  the  presbytery  invests  him  with  the  office  of  ruling  or  teaching 
elder,  as  the  case  may  be,  "  and  thus  it  follows  upon  general  principles 
that  a  two-fold  ordination  is  superfluous  and  unnecessary,  and  might 
be  consistently  dispensed  with,  were  it  not  for  the  express  provision -of 
the  lex  jjositiva,  the  constitution  of  the  Church."  *  In  other  words,  the 
theory  and  the  constitution  are  in  direct  conflict.  It  is  strange  that  the 
shock  of  this  collision  did  not  waken  the  Presbyter  from  the  pleasing 
dream  that  he  is  laboring  to  bring  the  practice  of  the  Church  into 
harmony  with  its  laws.  His  theory  would  lead  to  a  practice  which  he 
admits  the  constitution  condemns.  He  must,  therefore,  acknowledge 
either  that  the  constitution  is  in  conflict  with  itself,  enjoining  a  prac- 
tice inconsistent  with  its  j^rinciples,  or  that  his  theory  and  that  of  the 
constitution  are  two  very  different  things.  His  theory  requires,  nay, 
admits  of  but  one  ordination ;  the  constitution  requires  two  ;  one  to  the 
office  of  ruling  elder,  and  a  second  when  a  ruling  elder  is  made  a 
minister.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  that  Presbyter  and  the  constitu- 
tion can  hold  the  same  doctrine. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  source  of  the  mistake  into  which  he  has  fallen. 
He  says  ministers  and  elders  are  of  the  same  order,  but  have  difl^erent 
offices ;  ordination  confers  order  and  election  by  the  people,  or  instal- 
lation confers  office.  Now  if  it  should  turn  out  that  ordination  confers 
office,  there  is  of  course  an  end  of  the  whole  argument.  The  word 
order  is  one  of  vague  import.  It  is  often  used  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
is  employed  by  Presbyter  to  designate  a  class  of  persons  distinguished 
by  some  common  peculiarity  from  the  rest  of  the  community.  In  this 
sense  the  military  are  an  order ;  so  are  the  clergy,  and  so,  in  many  coun- 
tries are  the  nobility.  Now  the  only  way  in  which  a  man  can  be  admit- 
ted into  any  order,  is  by  appointing  him  to  some  definite  office  or  rank, 
included  in  that  order.  The  only  way  in  which  a  man  is  introduced 
into  the  military  order,  is  by  a  commission  conferring  on  him  a  certain 
rank  or  office  in  the  army ;  and  to  introduce  a  man  into  the  order  of 
nobles,  something  more  is  necessary  than  a  vague  patent  of  nobility; 
he  must  be  created  a  baron,  earl,  marquis  or  something  else  included 
in  the  order.  And  in  like  manner  no  man  is  introduced  into  the  order 
of  the  clergy  in  any  other  way  than  by  conferring  upon  him  some  cler- 
ical office.  Ordination,  therefore,  confers  order  only  because  it  confers 
office.  Need  the  question  even  be  asked  whether  the  doctrine  of  Pres- 
byter, that  ordination  confers  order,  and  election  or  installation,  office, 
is  consistent  with  our  constitution?    "Ordination,"  says  the  Westmin- 

•  *  Presbyter,  No.  IL 


EIGHTS  OF  EULING  ELDEES.  273 

ster  Directory,  "  is  the  solemn  setting  apart  of  a  person  to  some  public 
Church  office."  Our  constitution  is  no  less  explicit.  It  prescribes  the 
mode  in  which  "  ecclesiastical  rulers  should  be  ordained  to  their  respec- 
tive offices."  With  regard  to  the  ruling  elder,  it  is  said,  after  the  pre- 
liminary steps  have  been  taken,  "  The  minister  shall  proceed  to  set 
apart  the  candidate,  by  prayer,  to  the  office  of  ruling  elder."  In  like 
manner  it  speaks  of  the  preaching  elder,  being  "  solemnly  ordained  to 
the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry."  Ordination  to  office,  therefore,  is 
the  only  ordination  of  which  our  constitution  has  any  knowledge. 

If  then  it  is  the  plain  undeniable  meaning  of  our  constitution,  that ' 
ordination  confers  office,  that  it  constitutes  a  man  a  minister  or  ruling 
elder,  and  not  merely  introduces  him  into  the  order  of  presbyters, 
it  seems  to  us  that  the  whole  foundation  of  the  argument  under  consid- 
eration is  swept  away.  The  argument  rests  on  a  false  assumption  as  to 
the  nature  and  design  of  ordination.  Now  it  is  a  principle,  which  is 
universally  admitted  by  all  denominations  of  Christians,  except  the 
Independents,  that  the  right  to  ordain  to  any  office  in  the  Church  be- 
longs to  those  who  hold  that  office,  or  one  superior  to  it,  and  which  in- 
cludes it,  A  minister  ordains  ruling  elders  because  he  is  himself  a 
ruling  elder  as  well  as  a  minister.  The  only  ground,  therefore,  on 
which  the  right  of  ruling  elders  to  take  part  in  the  actual  ordination 
of  ministers  of  the  gospel  can  be  maintained,  is  that  they  hold  the 
same  office.  But  this  cannot  be  asserted  with  any  show  of  regard  to 
the  constitution.  Every  page  relating  to  the  subject,  plainly  teaches 
that  they  have  different  offices.  It  tells  us  that  the  ordinary  and  per- 
petual officers  in  the  Church  are  pastors,  elders  and  deacons;  that  the 
pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  dignity  and  usefulness,  the  duties  of  which 
are  mentioned  in  detail ;  that  the  ruling  elder  holds  a  difierent  office, 
the  rights  and  duties  of  which  are  also  particularly  mentioned.  All 
this  is  so  clear  that  it  is  admitted  as  an  indisputable  fact.  Presbyter 
complains  that  Calvin  entirely  misapprehends  the  ground  taken  by 
himself  and  his  friends  in  supposing  that  they  hold  the  identity  of 
the  offices  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders.  No  one,  he  says,  "  has  ever 
stated  or  contended  for  such  a  principle,  or  anything  like  it,"  "  We 
hold  to  identity  of  order  but  diversity  of  office.' ' 

We  may  remark,  in  passing,  that  in  the  light  of  this  admission,  his 
rebuke  of  Calvin  for  saying  that  the  minister  "  has  a  right  to  take  an 
official  place  above"  the  elders,  seems  somewhat  unaccountable.  This, 
he  says,  if  it  means  any  thing,  means  that  "  the  teaching  elder  or  pres- 
byter is,  as  a  matter  of  right,  officially  above  the  ruling  presbyter ; 
the  one  is  preferred  (prcelatus)  above  the  other,  holds  a  higher  rank, 
forms  another  and  distinct  order,  thus  making  two  orders,  which,  with 
the  deacons,  makes  three  orders  in  the  ministry.  If  this  is  not  prelacy, 
18 


274  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

what  is  it  ?  .  .  .  This  is  not  diocesan  episcopacy  or  prelacy,  it  is 
true,  but  what  is  just  as  bad  in  principle,  viz :  parochial  episcopacy  or 
prelacy,  and  only  difiers  from  the  former  in  this,  that  in  that  case  one 
bishop  or  presbyter  is  preferred  {proelatus)  above  the  presbyters  of  a 
diocese."*  How  often  does  it  happen  that  the  children  of  this  world 
are  wiser  in  their  generation  than  the  children  of  light !  Here  are  we 
making  ourselves  the  laughing-stock  of  other  denominations,  by  our 
disputes  about  the  first  principles  of  our  organization.  Presbyterians 
have  time  out  of  mind  been  contending  for  parochial  in  opposition  to 
diocesan  episcopacy,  when  it  turns  out  at  last  that  the  one  is  as  bad  in 
principle  as  the  other  ;  that  both  are  equally  inconsistent  with  Presby- 
terianism !  It  is  but  the  other  day  we  saw  in  the  Presbyterian,  if  we 
mistake  not,  an  argument  in  favor  of  our  system,  derived  from  the  fact 
that  there  were  three  hundred  bishops  in  one  council  in  the  north  of 
Africa ;  sixty  bishops  in  a  province  not  larger  than  New  Jersey ;  fifty 
in  another ;  forty  in  another.  This  was  appealed  to  in  proof  that 
parochial  and  not  diocesan  episcopacy  then  prevailed,  and  parochial 
episcopacy  was  held  to  be  Presbyterianism.  But  it  seems  it  is  no  such 
thing ;  that  if  we  "once  admit  the  official  inferiority  in  order  or  rank 
of  the  ruling  elder  to  the  preaching  elder,  then  is  Presbyterian  parity 
destroyed,  and  jDrelacy  virtually  established."t  Now  what  says  our 
book  on  this  subject?  Presbyter  admits  that  the  office  of  the  minister 
difiers  from  that  of  the  elder.  If  they  differ,  the  one  may  be  higher 
than  the  other.  The  book,  in  speaking  of  bishops  or  pastors,  says 
their  office  is  "the  first  in  the  Church  for  dignity  and  usefulness." 
There  are  then  three  permanent  officers  in  the  Church — bishops, 
elders,  and  deacons,  and  of  these  the  bishop  is  pronounced  the  first 
in  dignity  and  usefulness.  Is  this  not  official  superiority  ?  If  a  gen- 
eral is  the  first  officer  in  an  army,  is  he  not  officially  superior  to  a 
colonel  ?  If  our  constitution  supposes  a  parity  of  office  among  minis- 
ters and  elders,  why  is  it  said  that  the  minister  "shall  always  be 
the  moderator  of  the  session  ?"  Why  in  the  case  of  his  absence  are 
the  session  directed  to  get  a  neighbouring  minister  to  act  as  modera- 
tor,  and  only  when  that   is  impracticable,  are  they  allowed  to  pro- 

*  Presbyter,  No.  I. 

t  The  words  "  order  or  rank"  in  the  above  sentence,  add  nothing  to  its  mean- 
ing. It  is  "official  superiority"  of  tlie  minister  to  the  elders  that  Presbyter 
pronounces  to  be  prelacy.  This  is  evident,  because  Calvin  said  nothing  about 
order  in  the  sentence  which  is  the  ground  of  Presbyter's  charge  of  prelacy;  he 
said  simply  that  the  minister  "had  an  official  place  above"  his  elders.  This 
Presbyter  says  is  "  out  and  out  "  the  prelatical  principle.  If  the  "  teaching  elder 
is  as  a  matter  of  right  officially  above  the  ruling  presbyter,"  then,  he  says,  parity 
is  destroyed,  and  prelacy  is  established. 


RIGHTS  OF  EULING  ELDERS.  275 

ceed  without  one?  On  the  other  hand,  the  constitution  directs  that 
"the  moderator  of  the  presbytery  shall  be  chosen  from  year  to  year." 
There  is  no  such  superiority  of  one  minister  over  another,  as  to  autho- 
rize his  acting  as  the  perpetual  moderator  of  the  presbytery.  When 
an  elder  is  to  be  tried,  he  is  arraigned  before  the  session ;  but  pro- 
cess against  a  gospel  minister  must  always  be  entered  before  the 
presbytery.  Why  is  this,  but  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  be  tried 
by  his  peers  ?  If  so,  then  the  elders  are  not  the  peers  of  the  minis- 
ters ;  they  are  not  officially  his  equals,  though  personally  they  may 
be  greatly  his  superiors.  Now  as  our  book  calls  the  pastor  of  a  con- 
gregation a  bishop,  and  never  gives  that  title  to  elders,  as  it  declares 
his  office  to  be  the  first  in  dignity  in  the  Church,  as  it  constitutes  him 
the  perpetual  moderator  of  the  session,  confers  on  him  the  right  to 
ordain  ruling  elders,  and  declares  that  he  is  amenable,  not  to  the  ses- 
sion, but  to  the  presbytery,  it  establishes  parochial  episcopacy,  just  as 
much  as  the  canons  of  the  Church  of  England  establish  prelacy  or 
diocesan  episcopacy.  This  is  Presbyterianism  ;  the  Presbyterianism  of 
Geneva,  France,  Germany,  Holland,  Scotland,  and  of  our  fathers  in 
America ;  and  if  we  are  now  to  have  a  different  kind,  we  must  get  a 
new  book. 

If  then  it  is  admitted  that  ministers  and  ruling  elders  hold  different 
offices,  and  if  as  has  been  clearly  shown  from  the  constitution,  ordina- 
tion confers  office,  the  inference  seems  unavoidable,  that  those  only  who 
hold  the  office  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  can  confer  that  office  upon 
others.  Presbyterians  deny  the  right  of  ordination  to  the  civil  magis- 
trate ;  they  deny  it,  under  ordinary  circumstances  to  the  people  ;  they 
deny  it  to  any,  who  have  not  themselves  been  invested  with  the  office 
conferred.  Thus  much  concerning  Presbyter's  argument  that  ordina- 
tion confers  order,  and  election  office,  and  therefore  that  all  who  belong 
to  the  order  of  presbyters  may  join  in  the  ordination  of  ministers  of  the 
gospel. 

We  wish  to  say  a  few  words  respecting  the  argument  from  Scripture. 
The  reasoning  of  our  brethren  from  this  source,  seems  to  be  founded  on 
the  high,  jus  divinum,  principle,  that  there  is  a  definite  and  complete 
form  of  government,  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God,  from  which  the 
Church  has  no  right  to  deviate ;  either  by  introducing  new  officers,  or 
judicatories,  or  by  modifying  the  duties  of  those  therein  mentioned. 
That  Presbyter  adopts  this  principle  is  plain.  In  his  fifth  number  he 
says,  there  are  but  two  grounds  on  which  the  office  of  ruling  elder  can 
be  maintained,  "  either  of  human  expediency  or  of  divine  warrant.  If 
upon  the  former,  then  it  is  a  human  device,  though  a  very  wise  and 
useful  one,  and  worthy  to  be  retained  as  a  matter  of  sound  public  pol- 
icy  If  the  ruling  elder  is  not  a  scriptural  presbyter,  and 


276  CHURCH  POLITY. 

his  office  a  divine  institution,  tlien  of  course  we  claim  for  liim  no  part 
of  the  powers  of  ordination,  or  any  other  presbyterial  power ;  it  would 
be  manifestly  inconsistent  to  accord  him  any,  and  in  this  view  our  con- 
stitution has  done  what  it  had  no  right  to  do,  viz.,  added  to  the  ap- 
pointments of  God,  as  to  the  government  of  the  Church.  If  the  ruling 
elder  be  a  scriptural  presbyter,  and  his  office  a  divine  institution,  then 
we  are  bound  to  take  it  as  we  find  it  instituted  according  to  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  Church,  the  word  of  God,  without  adding  to,  or  tak- 
ing therefrom,  and  to  accord  to  it  such  powers  as  are  there  granted,  and 
to  withhold  none  which  are  not  there  denied."  In  remarking  on  Acts 
xiv.  23,  where  it  is  said  that  the  aj)0stles  ordained  "  elders  in  every 
church,"  he  says,  if  these  were  all  preaching  elders,  it  "  is  fatal  to  Pres- 
bjrterianism."  Again,  "  If  the  ruling  elder  be  not  a  scriptural  presby- 
ter, but  a  mere  layman,  an  officer  of  human  appointment,  why  say  so, 
and  let  him  be  shorn  of  all  his  assumed  presbyterial  powers  as  well  as 
a  part."  We  call  this  the  high-toned  jus  divinum  principle,  not  be- 
cause it  asserts  the  fact  that  the  office  of  ruling  elder  existed  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  was  expressly  instituted  by  Christ,  but  because 
it  asserts  the  absolute  necessity  of  such  express  appointment ;  declares 
that  the  want  of  it  is  fatal  to  Presbyterianism  ;  and  that  we  are  bound 
to  have  the  office  precisely  as  the  apostolic  churches  had  it ;  and  that 
we  violate  the  command  of  God  if  we  either  add  to  its  powers,  or  de- 
tract from  them. 

The  whole  argument  of  Presbyter,  on  this  subject,  is  founded  on  the 
assumption  that  there  is  a  complete  system  of  government  laid  down  in 
the  Scriptures,  to  which  all  Churches  are  by  divine  authority  required 
to  conform.  We  shall  show  that  this  is  not  the  ground  assumed  in 
our  standards,  and  that  it  is  untenable.  There  are  certain  principles 
in  which  all  Presbyterians  are  agreed,  and  for  which  they  think  they 
have  a  clear  scriptural  warrant.  For  example,  that  the  apostles  had  a 
general  superintendence  and  control  over  the  Churches  ;  that  they  ap- 
pointed no  successors  to  themselves  in  that  general  supervisory  office  ; 
that  they  committed  the  government  of  the  Church  to  presbyters, 
whom  they  directed  to  ordain  others  to  the  same  office  ;  that  of  these 
elders,  some  ruled  while  others  laboured  in  word  and  doctrine  ;  and 
that  in  many  Churches,  if  not  in  all,  deacons  were  appointed  for  the  care 
of  the  sick  and  poor  ;  and  that  the  Church  should  act  as  one,  as  far  as 
her  circumstances  will  permit.  We  maintain,  therefore,  in  opposition 
to  prelatists,  that  there  is  no  scriptural  authority  for  any  officer 
having,  as  a  successor  to  the  apostles,  power,  over  many  churches ; 
and  that  every  thing  we  find  in  Scripture  is  opposed  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  an  office.  On  the  other  hand,  we  contend  against 
Independents   and    Congregationalists,  that    the  government    of  the 


EIGHTS  OF  RULING  ELDERS.  277 

Churcli,  the  right  of  discipline  and  ordination,  as  well  as  the  authority 
to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments,  was  committed  to  the  rulers 
and  not  to  the  members  of  the  Church.  "VVe  maintain  that  Christ  has, 
in  his  infinite  wisdom,  left  his  Church  free  to  modify  her  government, 
in  accordance  with  these  general  principles,  as  may  best  suit  her  cir- 
cumstances in  different  ages  and  nations.  Having  constituted  the 
Church  a  distinct  society,  he  thereby  gave  it  the  right  to  govern  itself, 
according  to  the  general  principles  revealed  in  his  word.  If  it  be  ob- 
jected that  this  leaves  many  things  in  our  system  to  rest  on  no  better 
ground  than  expediency,  that  it  makes  them  what  Presbyter  calls 
"  human  devices,"  the  answer  is,  that  if  Christ  has  given  his  Church 
the  power  of  self-government,  what  the  Church  does  in  the  exercise  of 
that  power,  if  consistent  with  his  revealed  will,  has  as  much  his  sanc- 
tion as  it  well  could  have  under  any  theory  of  Church  government.  If 
Paul  says  the  civil  powers  are  ordained  of  God,  so  that  they  who  resist, 
resist  the  ordinance  of  God,  although  God  has  not  revealed  even  a 
general  system  of  civil  polity,  we  see  not  why  the  same  is  not  much 
more  true  with  respect  to  the  Church. 

That  this  is  the  true  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  evident,  in  the  first 
place,  from  the  absence  of  any  express  command  binding  the  Church 
in  all  ages  to  conform  her  mode  of  government  in  every  respect  to  the 
example  of  the  apostolic  churches.  If  Christ  and  his  apostles  had 
intended  to  make  such  conformity  a  matter  of  perpetual  obligation,  it 
is  fair  to  presume  they  would  have  said  so.  As  they  have  nowhere 
given  or  intimated  such  a  command,  no  man  has  now  the  right  to  bind 
the  conscience  of  God's  people  in  this  matter.  Again,  that  the  apos- 
tles never  meant  to  make  their  example  in  all  points  of  this  kind,  a 
perpetual  law  for  the  Church,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  they  did  not 
themselves  pursue,  in  all  particulars,  the  same  plan  in  all  places.  There 
are  some  general  principles  to  which  they  seem  to  have  adhered,  but 
it  is  far  from  being  certain,  or  even  probable,  that  all  the  apostolic 
churches  were  organized  exactly  after  the  same  model. .  This  indeed 
was  hardly  possible  in  that  day  of  inspiration  and  miraculous  gifts, 
which  the  Spirit  distributed  to  every  man,  according  to  his  own  will ; 
so  that  some  were. apostles,  some  prophets,  some  teachers;  after  that 
miracles,  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of 
tongues.  According  to  another  enumeration,  some  were  apostles,  some 
prophets,  some  evangelists,  some  pastors  and  teachers.  According  to 
still  another,  some  had  the  gift  of  prophecy,  some  that  of  the  ministry, 
some  that  of  teaching,  others  that  of  exhortation,  others  that  of  ruling, 
and  others,  that  of  showing  mercy.  It  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  assump- 
tion that  these  gifts  were  confined  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons  of  the 
Church ;  and  if  not  so  confined,  they  must  have  produced  a  state  of 


278  CHUECH  POLITY. 

things  and  a  mode  of  administering  the  word  and  ordinances  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  very  different  from  any  which  is  now  actual  or 
possible.  Again,  we  know  that  the  apostles  were  accustomed  to  go  into 
the  Jewish  synagogues  and  preach  the  gospel;  if  the  majority  of  the 
people,  with  their  rulers,  believed,  from  all  that  appears  they  left  them 
without  any  change  in  their  organization.  But  if  "  divers  were  hard- 
ened, and  believed  not,"  they  "  departed  and  sejDarated  the  discijiles." 
We  know  that  presbyters  were  ordained  in  all  the  churches ;  and  it  is 
probable  deacons  were  also  generally  introduced,  as  we  know  they  were 
at  Jerusalem  and  Philippi.  In  addition  to  deacons,  we  know  that  dea- 
conesses were  in  some  instances  appointed,  but  we  have  no  evidence 
that  this  was  the  universal  practice.  It  is  a  very  common  opinion  that 
in  some  churches  the  teachers  were  a  distinct  class  from  that  of  preach- 
ers and  rulers.  Again,  it  is  plain  that  in  those  places  where  the  num- 
ber of  converts  was  small,  there  was  but  one  Church  under  its  own 
bench  of  elders ;  but  in  others,  where  the  disciples  were  so  numerous  as 
to  form  several  congregations,  as  in  Jerusalem  and  probably  in  Ephe- 
sus,  we  know  not  how  they  were  organized.  We  know  they  were  under 
the  government  of  presbyters,  but  whether  each  congregation  had  its 
own  bench  of  elders,  as  with  us,  or  whether  all  were  under  one  com- 
mon body,  as  in  some  of  the  consistorial  churches  of  France,  is  more 
than  any  man  can  tell.  Again,  in  those  places  where  an  apostle  per- 
manently resided,  as  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  impossible  that  the  government 
of  the  Church  should  not,  for  the  time  being,  be  somewhat  modified 
by  that  circumstance.  An  apostle  had  a  right  to  ordain  whom  he 
pleased ;  he  had  authority  over  presbyters ;  and  could  exercise  disci- 
pline in  his  own  name.  Considering  all  these  circumstances,  we  think 
the  conclusion  irresistible,  that  while  the  apostles  adhered  to  the  great 
principles  above  referred  to,  they  varied  the  details  of  Church  organi- 
zation to  suit  the  circumstances  of  particular  places  and  occasions.  If 
this  is  true,  then  of  course  we  are  not  bound  to  conform  in  all  points  to 
their  example,  for  their  example  was  not  uniform. 

That  this  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  this  subject,  is  plain  from 
the  express  letter  of  her  constitution,  and  from  her  practice.  We,  in 
common  with  all  other  Churches,  have  acted,  and  must  act  on  this 
principle.  Our  constitution  declares  that  synods  and  councils  are  an 
ordinance  of  God  for  the  goverment  of  the  Church,  but  for  the  partic- 
ular constitution  and  mutual  relation  of  such  councils,  she  asserts  no 
express  command  or  uniform  apostolic  usage.  It  is  declared  to  be 
"  expedient  and  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Christians,  that  the  Church  should  be  governed  by  congregational, 
presbyterial  and  synodical  assemblies.  In  full  consistency  with  this 
belief,  we  embrace  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  those  Christians  who  differ 


EIGHTS  OF  EULING  ELDEES.  279 

from  us,  in  opinion  or  practice,  on  these  subjects."  Though  we  have  a 
divine  warrant  for  the  government  of  the  Church  by  presbyters,  where 
is  our  scriptural  warrant  for  our  mode  of  organizing  Church  sessions  ? 
Where  do  we  find  it  said  that  one  presbyter  shall  be  the  perpetual 
moderator  of  that  body  ?  or  where  is  the  express  warrant  for  saying 
that  such  presbyter  must  be  a  minister  ?  Our  book  says  that  ruling 
elders  are  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  so,  according  to  our 
system,  they  undoubtedly  are ;  but  where  do  the  Scriptures  assign 
them  this  distinctive  character  ?  It  is  said  that  the  apostles  ordained 
elders  in  every  Church,  but  can  we  prove  that  they  made  one  class  of 
those  elders  any  more  the  representatives  of  the  people,  than  the  other  ? 
Again,  we  have  a  divine  warrant  for  synods  in  the  general,  and  for 
parochial  presbyteries  in  particular,  but  where  is  our  express  warrant 
for  the  peculiar  organization  of  our  presbyteries  ?  These  are  not  only 
permanent  bodies,  but  in  a  great  measure  self-jDcrpetuating,  and  are  in- 
vested with  judicial  authority  over  all  the  parochial  presbyteries  within 
their  bounds.  Admitting  that  this  is  not  only  expedient  and  agreeable 
to  Scripture,  which  is  all  our  book  asserts,  but  sustained  by  an  express 
divine  warrant,  where  have  we  any  such  warrant  for  the  mode  of  con- 
stituting these  bodies  ?  If,  as  Presbyter  maintains,  all  presbyters  have 
"  common  presbyterial  powers,"  and  if  we  are  forbidden  either  to  add 
to  or  detract  from  those  powers,  will  he  please  to  produce  his  warrant 
for  saying  that  all  the  preaching  elders  within  a  certain  district  shall 
have  a  seat  in  j^resbytery,  and  only  one  in  three  or  one  in  ten  of  the 
ruling  elders  ?  If  all  have,  by  divine  right  the  same  powers,  will  he 
give  us  the  scriptural  authority  for  making  this  distinction  ?  The  same 
questions  may  be  asked  with  regard  to  the  constitution  of  our  synods, 
as  permanent  bodies,  excluding  two-thirds  of  our  presbyters  from  any 
immediate  voice  in  their  deliberations,  and  exercising  jurisdiction  over 
all  the  presbyteries  within  their  bounds. 

It  appears  then  the  principle  on  which  Presbyter's  whole  argument 
is  founded  is  unsound.  That  principle  is  that  the  Church  is  bound  to 
adhere  exactly  to  the  model  of  Church  government  laid  down  in 
Scripture ;  and  that  she  is  required  to  produce  an  express  divine  war- 
rant for  every  part  of  her  system ;  that  she  is  not  only  barred  from 
creating  any  new  office,  but  from  modifying  the  rights  and  duties  of 
those  at  first  established.  We  maintain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  while 
there  are  certain  general  principles  laid  down  on  this  subject  in  the 
word  of  God,  Christ  has  left  his  Church  at  liberty,  and  given  her  the 
authority  to  carry  out  those  principles.  This  we  have  endeavoured  to 
prove  from  the  absence  of  a  command  binding  the  Church  to  exact 
conformity  to  the  example  of  the  apostles ;  from  the  fact  that  the  apos- 
tles themselves  did  not  adopt  any  one  unvarying  plan  of  Church  orga- 


280  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

nization ;  and  from  the  undeniable  fact  that  every  Church  upon  earth> 
our  own  among  the  rest,  has  acted  upon  this  principle  and  introduced 
many  things  into  her  system  of  government  for  which  no  express  scrip- 
tural warrant  can  be  produced.  If  this  is  so,  then  even  if  it  were  con- 
ceded that  all  presbyters  originally  received  one  ordination,  and  of 
course  held  the  same  office,  of  which  some  discharged  one  duty  and 
some  another,  according  to  their  gifts,  it  would  not  follow  that  the 
Church  is  now  bound  to  concede  the  same  powers  and  rights  to  all 
presbyters,  any  more  than  she  is  to  grant  them  all  a  seat  in  presbytery 
and  synod.  In  other  words  the  principle  now  contended  for  is  not 
only  unreasonable,  and  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  people  of  God 
in  all  ages,  but  it  cannot  be  carried  through  without  essentially  modi- 
fying our  whole  organization. 

There  is  another  view  which  must  be  taken  of  this  scriptural  argu- 
ment. It  has  already  been  shown  not  only  that  the  principle  on 
which  this  argument  is  founded  is  untenable,  but  also  that  the  argu- 
ment itself  is  unsound.  The  argument  is — ordination  confers  order; 
all  therefore  who  belong  to  the  same  order  have  an  equal  right  to  or- 
dain ;  preaching  and  ruling  elders  belong  to  the  same  order ;  therefore 
they  have  a  common  right  to  ordain.  We  have  shown,  that  accord- 
ing to  our  constitution,  ordination  confers  office ;  that  only  those  who 
have  the  same  office  have  the  right  of  ordaining  to  that  office,  and 
therefore  as,  under  our  constitution,  the  ruling  elder  does  not  hold  the 
same  office  with  the  preaching  elder,  nor  one  that  includes  it,  he  has 
not  the  right  to  join  in  the  actual  ordination  of  ministers  of  the  gospel. 
Both  parties  to  this  discussion  see  and  admit,  that  the  only  thing  that 
gives  it  any  importance,  is  the  principle  involved  in  it.  The  real 
question  at  issue  is,  Are  ministers  and  elders  to  be  considered  as  hold- 
ing the  same  office?  It  is  now  our  object  to  show  that  the  principles 
assumed  on  the  other  side  lead  by  a  logical  necessity,  to  an  affirmative 
answer  to  that  question,  and  of  course  to  the  abolition  of  the  office  of 
ruling  elder,  and  to  the  subversion  of  our  constitution. 

The  principle  now  assumed  is  part  of  a  simple,  plausible,  consistent 
theory  of  Church  government,  but  one  very  different  from  ours.  That 
theory  is,  that  the  apostles  ordained  a  bench  of  elders  in  every  Church, 
to  whom  the  whole  oversight  of  its  instruction  and  government  was  com- 
mitted ;  that  these  elders  received  the  same  ordination  and  held  the 
same  office  and  possessed  the  same  rights  and  powers ;  but  as  some  had 
one  gift  or  talent  and  some  another,  it  occurred,  in  practice,  that  only 
some  preached  while  others  ruled.  This  difference,  however,  resulted 
from  no  diversity  of  office,  but  simply  from  difference  of  gifts.  All  had 
an  equal  right  to  preach  and  to  administer  the  sacraments  as  well  as  to 
rule.     The  arguments  in  support  of  this  theory  are  derived  partly  from 


RIGHTS  OF  RULING  ELDERS.  281 

the  usage  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  partly  from  what  is  said  in  the 
New  Testament.  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  never  mentioned  together, 
as  though  they  were  different  officers,  the  latter  term  being  used  to  include 
all  the  officers  of  the  Church  except  deacons ;  Paul  addressed  the  elders 
of  Ephesus  as  one  body,  having  common  responsibilities  and  duties ;  in 
writing  to  Timothy  he  gives,  among  the  qualifications  of  elders,  aptness 
to  teach ;  he  makes  no  distinction  between  the  two  classes,  but  having 
said  what  elders  should  be,  he  immediately  proceeds  to  speak  of  dea- 
cons. From  these  and  other  circumstances,  many  have  inferred  that 
all  presbyters  in  the  apostolic  churches  had  the  same  office,  and  the 
same  rights  and  duties.  This  was  Vitringa's  theory;  and  Presbyter 
quotes  and  adopts  Vitringa's  statements.  But  Vitringa  was  a  decided 
opposer  of  ruling  elders  as  a  scriptural  office.  So  in  all  consistency 
must  Presbyter  be.  He  is  in  fact  laboring  for  the  abolition  of  the 
office. 

At  the  time  of  the  formation  of  our  present  constitution,  there  were 
one  or  two  jirominent  men  in  our  Church  who  held  the  same  doctrine, 
but  they  were  opposed  to  our  whole  system,  and  complained  bitterly 
that  the  Synod  insisted  on  "  cramming  Scotland  down  their  throats." 
The  late  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson  was  another  advocate  of  this  theory ; 
but  he  was  the  most  zealous  opposer  of  ruling  elders  our  Church  ever 
produced.  lu  his  work  on  the  "  Primitive  Government  of  Christian 
Churches,"  he  says  one  of  his  principal  objects  was  to  show  "the  illite- 
racy of  making  mute  elders  a  characteristic  of  the  primitive  Church." 
"  Had,"  he  says,  "  there  existed  mute  elders  in  the  apostolic  churches, 
deacons  would  have  been  unnecessary.  Elders  must '  feed  the  Church,' 
and  be  '  apt  to  teach.' "  He  everywhere  maintains  that  presbyters  had 
the  same  office,  though  they  differed  in  their  gifts,  graces,  and  talents  ; 
some  being  best  qualified  for  governing,  others  for  exiiorting  and  com- 
forting, and  others  for  teaching.  He  therefore  says  that  1  Tim.  v.  17, 
"  expresses  a  diversity  in  the  exercise  of  the  presbyterial  office,  but  not 
in  the  office  itself."* 

We  say  that  Presbyter's  principles  lead  to  the  abolition  of  the  office 
of  ruling  elder,  not  because  others  who  have  adopted  those  principles 
have  discarded  the  office,  but  because  such  is  their  logical  consequence. 

*  Pp.  282,  283,  et  passim.  Dr.  Wilson  carried  his  theory  through,  so  far  that 
he  never  had  any  elders  in  his  church.  He  says,  "  We  ordained  deacons  and 
called  them  elders,  for  that  was  the  custom."  He  considered  the  constitution,  ch. 
xiii.  §  2,  as  giving  him  this  liberty.  It  is  there  said,  "  Every  congregation  shall 
elect  persons  to  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  and  to  that  of  deacon,  or  to  either  of  them.'' 
We  do  not  vouch  for  the  fact,  but  we  have  often  heard  it  asserted  that  he  never  as- 
sociated his  nominal  elders  with  himself  in  the  government  of  his  church,  kept  no 
sessional  records,  or  at  least  never  produced  them  before  presbytery. 


282  CHURCH  POLITY. 

He  says  first,  we  are  bound  to  have  the  office  precisely  as  it  was  first 
instituted ;  and  secondly,  that  all  presbyters  had  a  common  ordination 
and  common  presbyterial  powers.  If  so,  we  say  they  had  a  common 
office ;  for  how  can  identity  of  office  be  proved  if  it  is  not  established 
by  common  designations  and  titles,  by  common  duties,  by  common  char- 
acteristics^and  qualifications,  and  by  a  common  ordination?  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  argument  we  use  against  prelatists  to  prove  that  bishop  and 
elder  have  the  same  office.  "Those,"  says  Dr.  Owen,  "whose  names 
are  the  same,  equally  common  and  applicable  unto  them  all,  whose 
function  is  the  same,  whose  qualifications  and  characters  are  the  same ; 
whose  duties,  account  and  reward  are  the  same,  concerning  whom  there 
is,  in  no  place  of  Scripture,  the  least  mention  of  inequality,  disparity 
or  preference  in  office  among  them,  they  are  essentially  and  every  way 
the  same."  If  this  argument  is  good  in  one  case,  it  is  good  in  another. 
If  it  proves  that  bishops  and  presbyters  had  the  same  office,  it  cer- 
tainly proves  that  all  presbyters  had  also,  especially  if  all  had  the  same 
ordination.  In  opposition  to  all  this,  the  mere  fact  that  some  elders 
preached  and  some  ruled,  no  more  proves  diversity  of  office,  than  the 
fact  that  some  bishops  taught  and  others  exhorted,  that  some  were 
pastors  and  others  missionaries,  establishes  the  existence  of  as 
many  difierent  offices.  The  legitimate  conclusion  from  these  princi- 
ples is  not  only  that  there  is  no  such  scriptural  office  as  that  of  ruling 
elder ;  but  that  it  ought  to  be  abolished. 

Another  conclusion  to  which  these  principles  necessarily  lead  is,  that 
the  Church  session  must  be  invested  with  the  power  of  ordaining  min- 
isters of  the  gospel.  If  all  presbyters  have  by  divine  right  equal  au- 
thority to  ordain,  and  if  the  session  is  in  fact  a  presbytery,  who  has  a 
right  to  say  they  shall  not  exercise  a  power  given  them  by  Christ?  It 
is  clear  that  thiols  a  right  that  cannot  be  denied  to  the  session.  This 
is  a  conclusion  from  which  Presbyter  and  his  friends,  Ave  presume,  have 
no  disposition  to  shrink.  "We  see  it  asserted  that  no  scholar  has  yet 
found  a  single  case  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, in  which  the  word  presbytery  is  used  to  mean  anything  else  than 
the  pastors  and  elders  of  a  particular  church  ;  *  and  hence  if  the  ordi- 
nations of  that  period  were  presbyterial  they  were  performed  by  a 
Church  session.  We  are  told  also  that  the  parochial  presbytery  or 
Church  session  of  Antioch,  deputed  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  a  great 
mission,  "laid  their  hands  upon  them,"  and  that  these  apostles  gave 
account  of  themselves  when  they  returned.f  Now  when  we  re- 
member that  Paul  received  his  apostleship  neither  from  men,  nor  by 
man ;  neither  by  human  authority  nor  by  human  intervention,  but  by 

*  Spirit  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  vol.  i.  p.  459.  f  Do.,  p.  460. 


EIGHTS  OF  RULING  ELDERS.  283 

Jesus  Christ ;  that  he  constantly  denies  he  received  either  instruction 
or  authority  from  the  other  apostles,  and  felt  it  to  be  so  necessary  to 
assert  his  full  equality  "svith  those  inspired  messengers  of  Christ,  that 
lie  refused  to  make  any  report  to  them,  except  privately,  (Gal.  ii.  2) 
lest  he  should  appear  as  their  deputy;  "when  we  consider  all  this,  then 
•we  must  admit,  that  if  Paul  Avas  the  missionary  of  the  session  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  there  is  no  presbyterial  act  to  which  a  session  is 
not  competent. 

It  deserves,  however,  to  be  remarked  that  there  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  any  ruling  elders  in  the  Church  session  of  Antioch.  We 
read :  "  There  were  in  the  Church  that-was  at  Antioch  certain  prophets 
and  teachers,  Barnabas  "  and  four  others,  of  whom  one  was  the  apostle 
Paul.  "As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
said,  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul,  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have 
called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  If  this  was  a  Church  session, 
it  was  composed  of  "  prophets  and  teachers." 

Another  consequence  which  has  heretofore  been  drawn  from  the 
principles  under  consideration,  and  one  which  it  will  be  found  difficult 
to  avoid,  is  that  the  parochial  presbytery  is  the  only  one  for  which  we 
have  any  scriptural  warrant.  This  conclusion  must  be  greatly  con- 
firmed if  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  knew  nothing  of  any 
other  presbytery  than  the  pastor  and  elders  of  a  particular  church. 
Of  course  our  synods,  which  are  but  larger  presbyteries,  are  in  the 
same  predicament.  But  even  if  the  existence  of  these  bodies  can,  by 
any  ingenuity  of  logic,  be  sustained,  their  composition  must  be  entirely 
altered.  For  if  all  presbyters  have  by  express  scriptural  warrant  the 
same  rights,  then,  on  Presbyter's  principles,  it  cannot  be  allowed  that 
all  of  one  class  and  only  a  small  portion  of  the  other,  should  be  al- 
lowed a  seat  in  those  bodies. 

We  believe,  therefore,  that  it  is  undeniable  that  the  principles  on 
which  Presbyter  proceeds  are  subversive  of  our  constitution.  The  mea- 
sure now  urged  is  the  first  step  of  a  revolution ;  the  beginning  of  the 
end.  The  abolition  of  the  office  of  ruling  elder;  ordinations  by 
Church  sessions;  the  abrogation  of  our  presbyteries  and  synods,  or,  at 
least,  their  organization  on  an  entirely  different  plan  from  that  now 
adopted,  we  believe  to  be  the  logical  consequence  of  this  theory.  It  is 
only  the  first  step  that  can  be  successfully  resisted,  for  if  that  is  grant- 
ed the  whole  principle  is  conceded. 

We  wish  to  have  it  remembered  that  it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  of  the  two  leading  principles  of  Presbyter,  taken  separately,  that 
we  regard  as  of  such  serious  consequence.  It  is  the  union  of  the  two ; 
the  assertion  that  we  are  bound  by  allegiance  to  our  Lord,  to  adhere 


284  CHUECH  POLITY. 

exactly  to  the  usage  of  the  apostolic  churches ;  and  in  connection  with 
this  the  assertion  thaj;  all  presbyters  have  the  same  ordination  and  the 
same  presbyterial  powers.  The  unavoidable  conclusion  from  this  lat- 
ter position,  is  that  all  presbyters  had  in  the  apostolic  churches  the 
same  office.  The  question  whether  in  the  beginning  the  difference  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  presbyters  was  official  or  simply  de  facto; 
whether  the  preaching  elder  was  ordained  to  one  office,  and  the  ruling 
elder  to  another ;  or  whether  both  received  the  same  ordination  and 
performed  different  duties  of  the  same  office,  according  to  their  several 
gifts  or  talents,  is  a  question  we  have  not  discussed.  It  is  one,  more- 
over, which  our  constitution  has  intentionally  left  undecided,  and  is  in 
our  view,  of  very  subordinate  importance.  But  if  taken  in  connection 
with  the  principle  that  we  are  bound  to  adhere  exactly  to  the  apostolic 
model,  it  becomes  a  vital  question,  and  if  decided  as  it  must  be  on  the 
ground  assumed  by  Presbyter,  it  must  subvert  our  whole  system.  For 
if  he  first  binds  us  to  exact  conformity,  and  then  leads  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  all  the  early  presbyters  had  the  same  office,  it  follows 
of  course  that  all  our  presbyters  must  have  the  same  office,  the  same 
qualifications,  the  same  right  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments. 
If  these  rights  inhere  in  their  office  they  cannot  oe  taken  away.  Nor 
does  the  authority  to  exercise  them  depend  upon  the  election  of  the  peo- 
ple. A  man  ordained  to  the  office  of  the  gospel  ministry,  may  go  where 
he  will,  (so  he  violates  no  right  of  others)  and  act  as  such.  We  can  on 
these  principles  have  no  ruling  elders  such  as  we  now  have ;  and  all  our 
courts,  from  the  session  to  the  General  Assembly,  must  be  composed 
of  ministers ;  if  presbyters  hold  the  same  office  and  are  equally  entitled 
to  preach  as  well  as  rule. 

But  according  to  the  principle  recognized  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  our  constitution,  it  matters  little  how  this  question  about  the  pri- 
mitive elders  be  decided.  Christ  has  not  made  his  grace  to  depend  on 
the  details  of  external  organization  ;  nor  has  he  bound  his  Church  to 
any  one  exact  model  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  If  in  the  early  church- 
es it  was  expedient  and  easy  to  have  several  presbyters  in  the  same 
church,  all  clothed  with  the  same  office ;  and  if  we  find  it  better,  in 
our  circumstances,  to  have  one  minister,  assisted  by  a  bench  of  elders, 
we  have  a  divine  right  so  to  order  it.  If  after  the  manner  of  the  syn- 
agogue, there  was  in  every  church  a  presiding  officer  or  bishop,  sur- 
rounded by  other  presbyters,  authorized  either  to  teach  or  rule  as  they 
had  ability,  we  are  obedient  to  this  model,  in  having  a  bishop  and  el- 
ders in  every  congregation,  even  although  the  difference  between  our 
bishop  and  elders  be  now  official  and  not  merely  a  difference  of  gifts. 
If  it  is  now  difficult  to  find  one  preaching  presbyter  of  suitable  qualifica- 
tions for  each  congregation,  while  it  is  easy  to  get  many  men  of  the  re- 


EIGHTS  OF  RULING  ELDERS.  285 

quisite  leisure,  wisdom  and  piety,  to  join  in  ruling  the  house  of  God, 
"where  is  the  command  of  Christ  that  forbids  our  making  a  division  of 
labor,  and  ordaining  men  to  different  offices  for  the  discharge  of  these 
different  duties  ?  This  liberty  of  carrying  out  and  applying  the  gen- 
eral principles  of  the  Scriptures,  our  Church  and  every  other  Church, 
has  exercised  and  must  exercise.  It  is  a  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free,  and  which  no  man  may  take  away. 

Into  the  historical  part  of  this  question,  our  limits  already  so  incon- 
veniently transcended,  forbid  us  to  enter.  We  believe  that  it  is  admitted 
that  the  present  practice  of  all  the  Eeformed  Churches  is  against  the  new 
theory,  and  of  course  the  measure  we  are  now  urged  to  adopt  will  raise 
another  barrier  between  us  and  all  other  Presbyterian  denominations. 
For  some  time  after  the  Reformation  in  Scotland,  ruling  elders  were  annu- 
ally elected ;  which  of  itself  creates  a  presumption  that  they  were  not 
considered  as  having  received  a  common  ordination  with  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel.  The  only  evidence  that  they  joined  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers  that  we  have  seen,  amounts  to  this  :  Ministers  were  then  or- 
dained with  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  elders  were 
members  of  the  presbytery,  therefore  elders  joined  in  the  imposition  of 
hands.  Presbyter  uses  a  similiar  argument  in  a  different  case  :  Timo- 
thy was  ordained  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  el- 
ders were  members  of  the  primitive  presb}i;eries,  therefore  elders  laid 
hands  on  Timothy.  It  is  easy  to  reply  :  Presbyter  was  ordained  with 
the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery ;  ruling  elders  are  mem- 
bers of  our  presb}i;eries  ;  therefore  ruling  elders  laid  their  hands  on 
Presbyter.  This  argument  is  just  as  conclusive  in  this  last  ease,  as  in 
either  of  the  former.     Facts  cannot  be  proved  by  syllogisms. 

The  great  argument  for  the  right  of  elders  to  join  in  the  ordination 
of  ministers,  derived  from  the  constitution,  is  that  ordination  is  a  pre*, 
byterial  act,  to  be  performed  with  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery,  and  as  elders  are  members  of  presbytery  they  have  a 
right  to  join  in  that  service.  It  will  be  admitted  that  the  constitution 
is  binding  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  framed  and  adopted ;  and  that 
it  is  unjust  to  enforce  it  in  a  different  sense,  even  though  the  words 
themselves  admit  of  the  new  construction.  If  a  man  in  deeding  an  es- 
tate should  define  its  limits  inaccurately ;  if  his  intention  could  be 
clearly  ascertained,  it  would  be  dishonest  in  any  man,  claiming  under 
the  deed,  to  take  advarftage  of  the  phraseology,  and  say  ;  There  are 
the  words,  you  must  abide  by  them.  The  real  question  then  is,  Did 
those  who  framed  and  those  who  adopted  our  constitution,  intend  by 
the  words  referred  to,  to  confer  on  ruling  elders  the  right  to  join  in  the 
actual  ordination  of  ministers  ?  If  they  did  not,  then  no  righteous 
claim  can  be  advanced  under  the  clause  in  question. 


286  CHURCH  POLITY. 

That  the  words  of  the  constitution  do  not  demand  this  construction 
is  clear  to  demonstration.  In  the  Westminster  Directory  it  is  said, 
"The  presbytery,  or  the  ministers  sent  by  them  for  ordination,*  shall 
solemnly  set  him  apart  to  the  office  and  work  of  the  ministry  by  lay- 
ing their  hands  on  him,"  &c.  Yet  the  Directory  repeatedly  asserts 
that  the  imposition  of  hands  in  ordination  belongs  to  "  the  preaching 
presbyters  orderly  associated."  This  Directory  was  the  rule  of  disci- 
pline in  our  Church  at  least  from  1729  to  1788,  when  the  new  consti- 
tution was  adopted ;  and  from  this  source  the  usus  loquendi  of  our  for- 
mularies has  been  principally  derived.  Who  then  can  believe  that  a 
form  of  expression,  which  in  that  book  has  confessedly  one  meaning, 
must  of  necessity  in  ours  have  a  different  ?  According  to  all  ordinary 
rules  of  inference,  we  should  conclude  that  the  same  phrase  was  to  be 
taken  in  the  same  sense,  in  two  works  so  nearly  related. 

Again,  it  is  not  more  certain  that  ordination  is  an  act  of  the  presby- 
tery, than  that  admission  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church  is  an  act  of 
the  session.  Yet  ruling  elders,  though  members  of  the  session,  cannot 
actually  introduce  a  man  into  the  Church  by  baptism.  In  like  man- 
ner, though  members  of  the  presbytery,  they  cannot  actually  ordain. 
In  both  cases  their  concurrence  is  necessary  in  deciding  on  the  fitness 
of  the  candidate  ;  but  the  executive  act  belongs  to  the  ministry.  These 
considerations,  at  least,  prove  that  the  language  of  the  constitution 
does  not  demand  the  construction  now  put  upon  it.  That  it  was  not 
intended  to  be  so  construed  is  proved  from  two  sources — the  language 
of  the  book  in  the  immediate  context  and  in  other  places,  and  from 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  Church.  The  constitution,  speaking  of 
the  ordination  of  ministers,  says  :  "  The  presiding  minister  shall,  by 
prayer,  and  with  the  laying  on  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  according 
to  the  apostolic  example,  solemnly  ordain  him  to  the  office  of  the  gos- 
pel ministry."  All  the  members  of  the  presbytery,  it  is  then  directed, 
shall  take  him  by  the  right  hand,  saying,  in  words  to  this  purpose, 
"  We  give  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take  part  of  this  minis- 
try with  us."  Of  the  words  here  used,  the  terms  minister  and  ministry 
have  a  fixed  and  uniform  meaning  in  our  standards.  They  always 
mean  minister  of  the  gospel  and  his  office.  They  must  therefore  have 
that  meaning  here.  The  term  member  may  be  used  either  for  any 
person  having  a  right  to  sit  in  the  body,  or  for  one  of  its  permanent 
constituent  members.  The  expression  "  all  the  members  "  may  mean 
either  all  without  distinction,  or  all  of  a  particular  class.  What  the 
sense  is  the  context  must  determine.     When  it  is  said  that  the  synod 

*  As  the  Directory  permitted  ordination  to  be  performed  by  a  committee,  it  eays, 
The  presbytery,  or  the  ministers  sent  for  ordination,  &c. 


EIGHTS  OF  KULING  ELDEKS.  287 

shall  be  opened  with  a  sermon  "  by  the  moderator,  or,  in  case  of  his 
absence,  by  some  other  member,"  "  some  member  "  can  only  mean 
"  some  member  "  competent  to  the  duty,  some  preaching  member.  In 
like  manner,  when  it  said  "  all  the  members  "  shall  take  the  newly  or- 
dained minister  by  the  hand,  it  can  only  mean  all  the  members  who 
are  authorized  to  say.  Take  part  of  this  ministry  with  us ;  which  no 
man  but  a  minister  can  say. 

What,  however,  we  should  think,  ought  to  put  all  controversy  on 
this  subject  out  of  the  question,  is  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Church. 
For  when  the  question  concerns  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  a  doc- 
ument, their  uniform  practice  is  decisive;  because  it  is  absolutely  in- 
credible that  the  framers  of  our  constitution  should  deliberately  intend 
to  express  one  thing,  and  yet  uniformly  act  as  though  they  meant  a 
different.  We  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  believe  that  the  authors 
of  our  Book,  and  the  presbyteries  in  adopting  it,  should  purpose  to 
make  an  important  change  in  the  usage  of  the  Church,  yet  in  no  case 
act  upon  that  intention ;  that  no  historical  evidence  should  exist  of  such 
a  purpose ;  and  that  those  who  were  active  in  drawing  up  the  constitu- 
tion should  all  say  they  had  no  such  thought,  and  never  heard  of  any 
body  else  having  it.  We  do  think  such  a  thing  never  happened  since 
the  world  began.  Men  can  hardly  intend  a  thing  without  knowing  it. 
This  mode  of  interpreting  a  constitution  in  opposition  to  the  manifest 
intention  of  those  who  framed  it,  and  of  those  whose  adoption  of  it 
gave  it  force,  must  destroy  it.  The  same  argument  on  which  so 
much  stress  is  now  laid,  would  prove  that  a  ruling  elder  might  be  the 
moderator  of  any  of  our  judicatures,  and  consequently  open  the  session 
with  a  sermon.  The  book  says :  a  member  shall  preach :  elders  are 
members  :  therefore,  elders  may  preach. 

We  conclude  by  repeating  that  the  mere  imposition  of*  hands  by 
elders,  in  the  case  of  the  ordination  of  a  minister,  is  a  matter  of  no 
importance.  If  understood  as  a  solemn  manner  of  expressing  their 
assent  to  his  ordination,  it  would  be  not  only  harmless,  but  decorous. 
It  is  the  principle  on  which  the  change  is  urged  that  gives  the  question 
weight.  That  principle  is  felt  on  both  sides  to  be  important;  and  it  is 
important,  because  it  must  work  a  change  in  our  whole  system.  If  this 
change  is  to  be  made,  it  ought  to  be  effected  in  the  way  prescribed  for 
altering  the  constitution,  and  not  by  the  introduction  of  a  single  mea- 
sure, which  unsettles  everything  and  settles  nothing. 


288  CHURCH  POLITY. 


§  6.    Whether  Ruling  Elders  may  join  in  the  Imposition 
of  Hands  when  ministers  are  Ordained.  [^'] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  y.— Digest  of  1873,  p.  116.] 

The  question  was  overtured  to  the  Assembly  of  1842,  whether  ruling 
elders  had,  under  our  constitution,  the  right  to  join  in  the  imposition  of 
hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers  ;  and  was  decided  by  a  unani- 
mous vote  in  the  negative.  As  this  answer  was  given  without  debate 
and  during  the  absence  of  some  members  who  took  an  interest  in  the 
subject,  a  vote  was  taken  to  reconsider  the  subject ;  and  it  was  then  laid 
on  the  table  and  passed  over  with  other  items  of  unfinished  business  to 
the  late  Assembly,  [1843].  In  the  meantime  the  Synod  of  Kentucky 
had  decided  in  favor  of  this  supposed  right  of  elders,  and  a  protest  was 
entered  by  the  minority  against  the  decision.  The  Presbytery  of  West 
Lexington  sent  up  an  overture  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  declaring  it 
to  be  their  judgment  that,  according  to  the  constitution  of  our  Church, 
ruling  elders  have  the  right  to  unite  with  preaching  elders  in  laying  on 
hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers.  The  committee  submitted  a  reso- 
lution declaring  that  neither  the  constitution  nor  practice  of  our  Church 
authorizes  the  ruling  elders  thus  to  participate  in  the  act  of  ordaining 
ministers.  This  resolution  became  the  topic  of  an  extended  discussion, 
and  was  finally  adopted  by  the  following  vote :  yeas,  138 ;  nays,  9 ;  non 
liquet,  1 ;  excused  from  voting,  4.  Of  the  nays  one  voted  under  instruc- 
tions, his  private  judgment  being  in  favour  of  the  affirmative;  and  four 
were  elders,  so  that  the  proportion  of  elders  in  favour  of  this  new  claim 
was  not  greater  than  that  of  ministers. 

The  main  argument,  on  the  other  side  is,  that  the  constitution  de- 
clares that  a  presbytery  consists  of  ministers  and  ruling  elders ;  that 
ordination  is  the  work  of  the  presbytery  ;  and  therefore,  as  much  the 
work  of  elders  as  of  ministers.  This,  which  is  so  much  the  most  plausi- 
ble, that  it  may  be  said  to  be  the  only  argument  in  favour  of  the  right 
in  question,  rests  entirely  on  the  meaning  of  the  constitution.  How  is 
this  to  be  determined  ?  How  do  we  j^roceed  when  we  wish  to  ascertain 
the  sense  of  a  passage  of  Scripture  ?  The  thing  to  be  done  is  to  find 
out  what  idea,  Paul  or  John  in  using  certain  language,  meant  to  con- 
vey. If  we  can  ascertain  that,  we  have  that  sense  of  the  words  which  we 
must  admit  to  be  the  true  one,  and,  in  the  case  of  a  rule  or  precept,  the 

[*From  article  on  ''  The  General  Assembly;"  topic,  "  Buling  Elders;"  Princeton 
Beview,  1843,  p.  432.] 


EULING  ELDERS  AT  ORDINATION  OF  MINISTERS.         289 

one  which  we  are  bound  to  obey.  To  ascertain  the  sense  which  an 
apostle  meant  to  express,  we  ascertain  in  the  first  place  the  literal,  ety- 
mological meaning  of  the  words.  In  a  multitude  of  cases,  this  is  enouo-h. 
Very  often,  however,  the  words  in  themselves  will  bear  different  in- 
terpretations;  to  determine  which  is  the  true  one,  we  ascertain  how  the 
author  uses  the  same  language  in  other  parts  of  his  writings  ;  how  it 
was  used  by  contemporary  writers ;  how  it  was  understood  by  those  to 
whom  it  was  addressed ;  how  it  is  explained  by  the  nature  of  the  thing 
spoken  of,  by  the  design  and  connection  of  the  passage  in  which  the 
language  occurs,  and  by  other  declarations  relating  to  the  same  subject ; 
and  finally  how  the  conduct  of  the  sacred  writers  and  of  those  whom 
they  instructed,  interprets  the  language  in  question.  If  they  so  acted 
as  to  show  they  understood  the  language  in  a  certain  way,  that  is  the 
way  in  which  we  are  bound  to  take  it.  Paul  calls  Christ  a  sacrifice  ; 
but  in  what  sense  ?  in  the  sense  of  a  propitiation  ?  or  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  are  exhorted  to  offer  ourselves  as  a  sacrifice  to  God  ?  The 
words  in  themselves  will  bear  either  interpretation  ;  but  as  we  find 
Paul  uses  the  language  in  reference  to  Christ  in  many  places  in  such  a 
way  that  it  can  only  have  the  former  of  these  senses ;  as  in  all  contem- 
porary writers,  this  language  was  used  to  express  the  idea  of  a  propitia- 
tion ;  as  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed  universally  understood  it  in 
that  sense ;  as  the  effects  ascribed  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  such  as  par- 
don of  sin,  etc.,  show  this  sense  of  the  term  ;  as  many  declarations  used 
in  relation  to  the  same  subject  admit  of  no  other  meaning ;  as  the  con- 
duct of  the  apostles  and  their  disciples  in  placing  their  hopes  of  accep- 
tance with  God,  on  the  death  of  Christ,  and  in  exhorting  others  to  do 
the  same,  proves  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  real  propitiation,  we  are 
sure  that  this  is  the  true  sense  of  the  language  which  they  employ.  "We 
say  that  the  constitution  is  to  be  interpreted  by  these  same  principles, 
and  that  we  are  bound  to  abide  by  the  sense  thus  elicited.  Let  it  be 
admitted  that  the  words  presbytery,  member,  and  ministry,  as  used  in 
our  book,  may  in  themselves  admit  of  the  interpretation  put  upon  them 
by  the  advocates  of  the  other  side  of  this  question,  yet  if  this  interpre- 
tation is  inconsistent  with  other  parts  of  the  book  ;  if  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  sense  in  which  this  language  was  used  by  contemporary 
writers ;  with  the  sense  in  which  it  was  understood  by  thqse  to 
whom  it  was  addressed ;  if  it  is  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  the 
service  spoken  of,  and  the  rights  and  duties  of  elders  as  elsewhere  ex- 
plained ;  and  if  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  those  who  framed 
the  constitution  and  of  those  who  adopted  it,  then  we  are  perfectly  sure 
that  it  is  not  the  true  meaning  of  that  instrument.  As  to  the  first  of 
these  points,  it  is  clear  that  a  presbytery,  in  the  sense  of  our  book,  is  a 
body  of  ministers  regularly  convened,  in  which  ruling  elders  have  a 
19 


290  CHURCH  POLITY. 

right  to  deliberate  and  vote  as  members ;  that  the  ministers  are  the 
standing,  constituent  members ;  the  elders,  members  only  as  delegated, 
for  a  particular  meeting,  and  for  the  special  purpose  of  deliberating 
and  voting.  This  is  the  idea  of  a  presbytery  on  which  our  whole  sys- 
tem is  founded ;  and  which  runs  through  our  whole  constitution.  An  in- 
terpretation of  any  particular  passage,  inconsistent  with  this  distinction, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  constitution.  It  is  by  virtue  of  this  leading 
principle  that  the  "  presbytery  "  often  means  the  body  of  ministers  who 
are  its  standing  members,  without  including  the  delegated,  any  more 
than  the  corresponding  members  who  may  happen  to  be  present. 
Hence,  too,  the  presbytery  is  said  to  do  what  its  standing  members  do, 
in  obedience  to  the  vote  of  the  body ;  and  hence  the  word  "  member  " 
is  used  only  of  ministers. 

Again,  the  interpretation  which  makes  the  expression  "  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery  "  include  ruling  elders,  is  inconsistent  with  the  sense 
that  language  bears  in  all  w-ritings  cotemporary  with  our  standards, 
or  of  authority  in  Presbyterian  Churches.  Thus  in  the  Westminster 
Directory,  whence  our  formularies  were  derived,  this  language  is  ad- 
mitted to  mean  the  hands  of  the  preaching  presbyters,  because  it  can 
there  have  no  other  meaning,  since  the  Directory  elsewhere  teaches  that 
the  work  of  ordination  belongs  to  ministers.  It  has  the  same  sense  in 
Stewart's  Collections,  a  book  still  of  authority  in  Scotland,  as  it  was  for- 
merly with  us ;  it  has  the  same  sense  in  all  the  publications  of  the  age 
in  which  our  Confession  of  Faith  was  formed,  which  are  regarded  as 
giving  an  authentic  exposition  of  Presbyterian  principles.  This  is  the 
point  to  which  Dr.  Maclean  principally  directed  his  remarks ;  and 
which  he  demonstrated  in  the  clearest  manner  by  abundant  references 
to  the  works  in  question.  What  would  be  thought  of  an  interpreta- 
tion of  an  expression  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  which  was  inconsistent 
with  the  sense  the  phrase  had  in  every  other  book  in  the  Bible  ? 

Again,  as  the  ministers  and  elders  who  adojDted  our  constitution  had 
been  accustomed  to  understand  the  expression  "  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery "  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Directory,  under  which 
they  had  so  long  acted,  it  is  clear  they  must  have  understood  it  the 
same  way,  when  that  expression  was  transferred  to  the  new  constitution. 
And  if  it  be  a  sound  principle  of  interpretation  that  we  must  take  the 
language  of  any  document  in  the  sense  which  it  was  designed  to  bear 
to  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  then  we  are  bound  to  take  the  con- 
stitution in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  framed  and  adopted.  That 
is  its  true    sense ;  the  sense  in  which  it  is  obligatory  on  the  Church. 

Again,  the  new  construction  of  the  passage  in  question,  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of,  and  with  the  doctrine 
elsewhere  taught  in  our  standards  concernino-  the  office  of  the  ruling 


EULING  ELDEES  AT  OEDINATION  OF  MINISTEES.         291 

elder.  When  it  is  said :  God  sits  on  a  throne ;  or,  This  is  my  body, 
we  know  that  the  language  is  not  to  be  taken  literally,  because  the 
literal  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  the  subject 
spoken  of,  and  with  what  is  elsewhere  taught  concerning  God,  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  So  when  it  is  said  that  the  presbytery  shall  ordain, 
we  know  that  the  standing  and  not  the  delegated  members  are  intend- 
ed from  the  nature  of  the  service.  When  it  is  said  "  some  member " 
shall  open  the  sessions  of  the  judicatory  with  a  sermon,  the  nature  of 
the  service,  of  necessity,  limits  the  phrase  to  those  members  that  are 
entitled  to  preach.  So  when  ordination  to  the  ministry  is  the  subject, 
the  language  is  of  necessity  confined  to  those  members  who  are  in  the 
ministry ;  who  can  say  to  the  newly  ordained  brother  "  we  give  you  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship,  to  take  part  in  this  ministry  with  us."  The 
word  ministry  means  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  in  our  standards  it 
means  nothing  else.  The  language  just  quoted  means  and  can  only 
mean,  "we  recognize  you  as -a  fellow  minister  of  the  gospel."  This  act 
of  recognition  is  from  its  nature  confined  to  those  who  are  in  the  min- 
istry. Besides,  as  ordination  is  a  solemn  setting  apart  to  a  certain  of- 
fice, it  belongs,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  all  churches,  except  the 
Brownist,  to  those  who  are  clothed  with  the  ofiice  conferred,  or  one  su- 
perior to  it,  and  which  includes  it.  If  ordination  were  merely  induc- 
tion into  the  order  of  presbyters,  from  which  some  members  by  a  sub- 
sequent process,  were  selected  to  preach,  and  others  to  rule,  then  the 
service  might  from  its  nature  belong  to  all  presbyters ;  but  as  beyond 
dispute  ordination  is  an  induction  into  a  particular  of&ce,  it  cannot,  ac- 
cording to  our  constitution,  belong  to  any  who  do  not  hold  that  office. 
Ordination  to  the  ministry  is  therefore  as  much  a  peculiar  function  of 
the  ministry  as  preaching  is.  The  construction  of  the  constitution 
which  would  give  ruling  elders  the  right  to  join  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers,  is  no  less  inconsistent  with  what  that  constitution  teaches  of 
the  nature  of  the  office  of  ruling  elder.  Ordination  is  an  act  of  execu- 
tive power,  which  does  not  pertain  to  the  ruling  elder.  They  have  the 
right  to  deliberate  and  judge,  but  the  execution  of  the  determinations 
of  our  judicatories  belongs  to  the  ministry.  This  argument  was  thus 
presented  by  Chancellor  Johns : 

''  The  constitution  of  our  Church  confers  upon  its  officers  three  kinds  of  power — 
legislative,  judicial  and  ministerial.  The  ruling  elders  are  clothed  by  the  consti- 
tution with  the  first  two,  legislative  and  judicial,  and  can  carry  with  them  nothing 
else,  place  them  where  you  may.  Look  at  your  elder  in  the  lowest  court,  the 
Church  session.  He  sits  here  as  a  legislator  and  a  judge.  But  the  moment  you 
have  to  execute  the  sentence  which  is  passed  in  this  court,  it  devolves  on  your 
minister  as  the  executive.  Trace  the  elder  up  to  the  presbytery  or  synod,  there 
he  appears  as  the  representative  of  the  Church,  but  only  with  legislative  and  judi- 


292  CHURCH  POLITY. 

cial  power.  When  the  constitution  refers  any  act  to  this  body,  it  requires  that  it 
be  done  in  a  constitutional  manner,  and  by  those  possessing  the  requisite  consti- 
tutional power.  After  the  decree  has  been  passed  that  a  man  shall  be  ordained, 
it  follows  that  it  must  be  done  by  those  who  are  not  defective  in  power.  It  is 
clear  that  the  moment  you  decide  that  ordination  is  a  ministerial  or  executive  act, 
that  moment  you  decide  that  it  must  be  performed  by  those  possessing  ministerial 
or  executive  authority.  The  execution  of  the  acts  necessarily  devolves  on  the 
competent  parts  of  the  body.  A  ministerial  or  executive  act  therefore  can  be  per- 
formed only  by  ministers.  Unless  you  make  an  elder  a  minister  at  once,  I  never 
can  admit  that  he  can  perform  an  act  belonging  to  the  ministerial  office.  This 
distinction  unlocks  the  whole  diflSculty.  On  this  principle,  the  presbytery  give 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  a  co-presbyter  '  to  take  part  of  this  ministry.'  But 
ruling  elders  are  not  in  the  *  ministry,'  and  therefore  even  this  act  does  not  belong 
to  them." 

Mr.  Breckinridge  says  a  minister,  per  se,  has  no  power  to  ordain,  but 
only  as  a  member  of  presbytery,  and  adds — 

''  The  question  comes  to  this,  do  ministers  as  such  ordain,  or  is  it  as  members 
of  presbytery  ?  If  as  the  latter,  and  not  as  the  former,  then  elders  being  equally 
members  of  the  presbytery,  share  in  the  act,  and  in  the  executive  power  vested  in 
the  whole  body." 

If  the  whole  matter  depends  on  the  question,  whether  ministers,  as 
such,  ordain,  or  only  as  members  of  presbytery,  we  think  it  may  be 
soon  settled.  Mr.  B.  appears  to  think  that  ministers  and  Church 
courts  get  all  their  powers  from  the  constitution ;  whereas  the  constitu- 
tion is  but  the  declaration  of  the  powers  which  belong  to  ministers  and 
judicatories,  and  the  stipulations  agreeably  to  which  those  who  adopt 
it  agree  to  exercise  their  respective  functions.  Suppose  the  constitu- 
tion was  out  of  existence,  would  ministers  and  courts  have  no  power  ? 
Have  not  any  number  of  ministers,  no  matter  how  or  where  convened, 
the  right  to  ordain?  Are  not  the  ordinations  by  the  ecclesiastical 
councils  in  New  England  valid,  although  such  councils  are  not  presby- 
teries within  the  definition  of  our  book  ?  An  affirmative  is  the  only 
answer  that  can  be  given  to  these  questions ;  consequently,  ordination 
is  a  ministerial  act ;  it  is  performed  by  ministers  as  such,  and  not 
merely  as  members  of  presbytery.  It  is  true,  all  the  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  have  entered  into  a  contract  with  each  other  not 
to  exercise  this  right,  except  under  certain  circumstances,  or  on  certain 
conditions.  They  have  agreed  not  to  ordain  any  man  who  does  not 
understand  Greek,  Latin,  and  Hebrew ;  who  has  not  studied  theology 
with  some  approved  minister,  at  least  two  years,  who  does  not  adopt 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Form  of  Government.  They  have  also 
agreed  not  to  exercise  this  right,  unless  regularly  convened  after  due 
notice,  that  all  interested,  and  having  a  right  to  be  present,  may  have 


RULING  ELDEES  AT  ORDINATION  OF  MINISTERS.         293 

the  opportunity.  The  reason  of  all  this  is  obvious.  These  ministers  are 
connected  with  others ;  every  man  whom  they  ordain,  becomes  a  joint 
ruler  and  judge  over  all  the  others ;  the  others,  therefore,  have  a  right  to 
a  voice  in  his  ordination,  that  is,  to  a  voice  in  deciding  under  what  cir- 
cumstances or  on  what  conditions  ordination  may  be  administered.  But 
this  does  not  prove  that  the  power  to  ordain  comes  from  the  constitu- 
tion, or  that  it  belongs  to  the  ministers  only  when  convened  in  what  we 
call  a  presbytery.  Any  two  or  three  ministers,  and  (according  to  Pres- 
byterian doctrine,  as  we  understand  it,)  any  one  minister  has  full  right 
to  ordain  as  Timothy  or  Titus  had.  Presbyterial  ordination  is  ordina- 
tion by  a  presbyter  or  presbyters,  and  not  by  a  presbytery,  in  our  tech- 
nical sense  of  the  term.  This  is  surely  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  only  doctrine  on  which  we  can  hold  up  our  heads  in  the  pre- 
sence of  prelacy.  It  is  the  only  ground  on  which  we  can  admit  the 
validity  of  ordination  by  a  single  prelate,  or  by  an  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cil, or,  in  short,  of  any  ordination  but  our  own.  If  then,  as  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge says,  the  only  question  is  whether  ministers  as  such,  ordain,  we 
think  that  even  he,  on  reflection,  must  admit  that  the  right  to  ordain 
is  inherent  in  the  ministerial  office,  and  does  not  arise  from  any  provi- 
sion of  our  constitution,  or  from  the  associations  of  ministers  and  elders 
in  the  form  of  a  presbytery. 

Again,  the  new  interpretation  given  to  the  constitution  is  contradict- 
ed by  the  practice  of  its  framers,  and  the  uninterrupted  usage  of  the 
Church.  This  consideration  has  been  set  aside  as  an  argument  from 
tradition.  But  no  argument  is  more  legitimate.  No  man  can  doubt 
that  if  we  had  authentic  information  how  the  apostles  and  their  disci- 
ples acted  in  carrying  out  the  commands  of  Christ,  we  should  have  the 
most  satisfactory  of  all  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  those  commands. 
Christ  directed  his  disciples  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supjier  as  a  me- 
morial of  him,  and  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  and  early  Christians  un- 
der that  command,  is  the  best  possible  proof  of  the  perpetual  obligation 
of  the  command.  He  directed  them  to  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  the  conduct  of  the  disciples,  in 
baptizing  whole  households,  is  one  of  our  best  arguments  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism.  Apostolic  usage  also  is  the  main  ground  of  our  obser- 
vance of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  weekly  sabbath.  Tiie  Protes- 
tant objection  to  the  Roman  doctrine  of  tradition  is  not  that  apostolic 
teaching  and  practice  are  of  no  authority,  but  that  we  have  no  authen- 
tic or  satisfactory  proof  of  what  that  teaching  and  practice  were,  except 
in  the  inspired  Scriptures.  If  papists  will  produce  undoubted  proof 
that  the  apostles  understood  the  commands  of  Christ,  and  especially 
their  own  commands  in  a  certain  way,  we  will  admit  that  such  is  the 
true  way.    So  if  our  opponents  will  produce  satisfactory  proof  that  the 


294  CHURCH  POLITY. 

framers  of  our  constitution  and  those  who  adopted  it,  intended  to  ex- 
press a  certain  idea  by  any  of  its  provisions,  we  will  admit  that  such  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  instrument  As  to  the  case  in  hand  there  is 
no  room  for  dispute.  The  framers  of  our  constitution  find  a  certain  ex- 
pression in  the  Westminster  Directory,  under  which  they  had  long 
acted,  and  where  it  had  an  undoubted  meaning,  they  transfer  that  ex- 
pression to  the  new  constitution,  and  continue  to  act  precisely  as  they 
did  before,  and  the  Church  has  continued  to  act  in  the  same  way  ever 
since.  If  this  does  not  fix  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  nothing  can 
do  it.  No  man,  as  far  as  we  know,  doubts  or  can  doubt  that  the  ex- 
pression "  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  "  was  intended  to 
mean  the  hands  of  the  ministers,  the  standing  members  of  the  presby- 
tery, and  that  it  has  been  so  understood  ever  since.  This  being  the  case, 
we  see  not  what  shadow  of  proof  there  can  be  that  such  is  not  its  mean- 
ing. Let  it  be  remembered  that  while  Presbyterians  have  ever  con- 
tended for  presbyterial  ordination,  they  have  always  contended  for  7nm- 
isterial  ordination,  and  that  no  case  of  lay  ordination,  or  of  an  ordina- 
tion in  which  ruling  elders  participated,  has  been  produced,  or,  as  is 
believed,  can  be  produced  in  the  history  of  any  Presbyterian  Church. 
Surely  it  is  rather  late  in  the  day  to  begin  to  teach  the  whole  Presby- 
terian world  what  are  the  first  principles  of  their  own  system. 

We  have  used  above  the  expression  lay  ordination,  without  intending 
to  decide  whether  ruling  elders  are  laymen  or  not.  This  is  a  mere 
question  of  the  meaning  of  a  word.  If  a  layman  is  one  who  holds  no 
office  in  the  Church,  then  they  are  not  laymen ;  and  then,  too.  Dr. 
Lushington  and  other  judges  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  in  England  are 
not  laymen.  But  if  a  layman  is  a  man  who  is  not  a  clergyman,  not  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  then  they  are  laymen.  The  latter  is  certainly 
the  common  meaning  of  the  word,  which  is  used  to  designate  those 
whose  principal  and  characteristic  business  is  secular,  and  not  sacred 
or  clerical. 

Finally  it  was  objected  to  the  ncAv  doctrine  that  it  was  destructive 
of  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  by  merging  it  into  the  ministry.  The  only 
satisfactory  or  constitutional  ground  on  which  the  participation  of 
elders  in  the  ordination  of  ministers  can  be  defended  is,  that  they  hold 
the  same  office,  that  they  take  part  in  the  same  ministry,  or  in  short 
that  elders  are  ministers.  But  this  conclusion  is  subversive  of  the 
office  of  ruling  elder  and  of  our  whole  system.  And  cui  bono,  what 
good  is  to  be  attained,  what  evil  cured  by  this  new  doctrine?  It  adds 
nothing  to  the  dignity  or  usefulness  of  the  elder's  office.  If  it  is  a  mere 
ceremony,  it  is  not  worth  contending  about ;  if  it  is  a  serious  matter,  it 
is  so  only  because  the  principle  on  which  the  claim  is  made  to  rest 
seriously  interferes  with  our  ecclesiastical  constitution. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  LAYING  ON  OF  HANDS.  295 

g  7.  Significance  of  liaying  on  of  Hands.  [*] 

[Form  of  Qov.,  chap,  xiii.,  sec.  iv. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  346.] 

The  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  reported  an  overture  from 
the  Presbytery  of  South  Alabama  on  the  subject  of  ordaining  elders  and 
deacons  with  the  imposition  of  hands.  The  committee  recommended 
that  it  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  each  Church  session  to  determine  the 
mode  of  ordination  in  this  respect. 

Under  the  old  dispensation  and  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  was  used  on  all  solemn  occasions  to  signify  the  idea  of 
communication.  It  is  a  fitting  and  becoming  ceremony  whenever  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  a  sacred  office  are  conferred ;  but  there  is  evi- 
dently no  necessity  or  peculiar  importance  to  be  attached  to  it.  There 
would  seem  to  be  something  of  the  leaven  of  the  Popish  doctrine  of  the 
communication  of  a  mysterious  influence,  producing  the  indelible  im- 
press of  orders,  still  lurking  in  the  minds  of  some  of  our  brethren.  If 
grace,  in  the  sense  of  divine  influence,  was  given  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  then  indeed,  it  would  be  a  serious  question  when  that  ceremony 
should  be  used.  But  if  grace,  in  such  connection,  means  what  it  often 
means  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  language  of  the  English  Reformers,  of- 
fice, considered  as  a  gift ;  then  it  is  obviously  a  matter  of  indifference, 
whether  those  in  authority  express  their  purpose  of  conferring  a  cer- 
tain office  by  words  or  signs,  or  by  both. 

^  8.  Installation  not  essential  to  Validity  of  EldersMp.  [f] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xiii.,  see's,  iii-v. — comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  347,  348.] 

[Judicial.]  Case  no.  3.     In  this  case  it  appears  that  the  session  of 

the   Church   of  Muncy   arraigned   General on 

three  charges.  On  two  of  these  he  was  condemned ;  but  on  the  first 
charge,  the  ruling  elders  of  the  Church  being  interested,  the  case  was 
referred  to  the  Presbytery  of  Northumberland,  who  tried  and  con- 
demned him  on  the  first  charge.  The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  after- 
wards, on  the  alleged  grounds  that  one  of  the  ruling  elders  had  not 
been  installed,  and  also  that  the  session  were  interested  personally  in 
the  case,  declared  the  whole  proceedings  null  and  void.  The  Rev. 
Messrs.  Waller  and  Gibson  now  complain  of  the  said  action  of  Synod ; 
and  Mr.  Smalley  appeals. 

The  only  point  of  general  interest  involved  in  this  case  is,  whether 
installation  is  essential  to  constitute  a  man  a  ruling  elder   in  any  con- 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  Princeton  Review,  1842,  p.  483.] 
[t  From  article  on  ''The  General  Assembly ;"  Princeton  Review,  185G,  p.  586.] 


296  CHUECH  POLITY. 

gregation.  The  affirmative  was  strenuously  asserted  by  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod.  The  negative  was  as  strongly  affirmed  by  several 
members  of  the  Assembly.  Judge  Leavitt  stated,  "  that  if  installation 
were  necessary,  he  himself  was  not  a  ruling  elder,  and  had  no  right  to 
a  seat  in  the  Assembly."  Mr.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  made  the  same 
statement  respecting  his  own  position.  "  He  had  never  heard,  indeed, 
the  word  installation  applied  to  ruling  elders  until  yesterday."  Simi- 
lar statements  were  made  by  others.  Mr.  Waller  stated  that  "  there 
were  five  uninstalled  ruling  elders  at  his  Presbytery  last  fall.  Did 
that  destroy  the  Presbytery  ?"  The  Assembly  refused  to  sustain  the 
appeal  and  complaint.  The  vote  stood — sustain,  52 :  not  sustain,  100 ; 
sustain  in  part,  14.  This  might  seem  to  imply  that  the  Assembly  in- 
tended to  sanction  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  installation.  To 
avoid  that  inference,  the  Kev.  Mr.  Shotwell  moved  that  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  bring  in  a  minute  expressing  the  judgment  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  the  case.  Dr.  Humphrey  "  thought  this  imjjortant,  inasmuch 
as  the  vote  of  the  morning  had  placed  many  members  in  a  very  equiv- 
ocal position.  Are  these  men,"  he  asked,  "  no  longer  ruling  elders  ?" 
The  motion  was  carried.  The  committee  subsequently  reported  the  fol- 
lowing minute,  which  was  adopted,  viz. 

The  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  minute  in  relation  to  the  action  of  the 
Assembly  in  Judicial  case  No.  3,  respectfully  recommend  the  passage  of  the 
following  resolutions,  to  prevent  on  the  one  hand  the  bad  effects  of  former  irregu- 
larities in  the  installation  of  ruling  elders,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  avoid  such 
irregularities  in  future. 

1.  Resolved,  That  any  ruling  elder,  regularly  ordained  or  installed  in  one 
church,  and  subsequently  elected  to  the  sacred  office  in  another  church,  and  who 
has  heretofore,  pursuant  to  such  election,  served  as  a  ruling  elder  in  such  other 
church,  without  objection,  shall  be  presumed  to  have  been  duly  installed  therein, 
and  his  right  to  act  shall  not  be  now  questioned. 

2.  Resolved,  That  when  a  ruling  elder  shall  hereafter  be  elected  to  the  same 
office  in  a  church  other  than  that  in  which  he  has  been  ordained,  the  minister  and 
session  are  hereby  enjoined  formally  to  install  him. 

3.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  hereby  declare  that  the  existing  law  of  the 
Church  as  to  the  mode  of  installation  is  as  follows : — After  sermon,  the  minister 
shall  speak  of  the  office  of  ruling  elders,  as  in  case  of  ordination,  and  shall  then 
propose  to  the  ruling  elder  elect,  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation,  the  following 
questions:  "Do  you  accept  the  office  of  ruling  elder  in  this  congregation,  and 
promise  faithfully  to  perform  all  the  duties  thereof?"  "  Do  you  promise  to  study 
the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Church?"  The  ruling  elder  elect  having 
answered  these  questions  in  the  affirmative,  the  minister  shall  ask  the  members  of 
the  church  whether  they  accept  him,  as  in  cases  of  ordination.  The  members  of 
the  church  having  answered  in  the  affirmative,  by  holding  up  their  right  hands, 
the  minister  shall  declare  him  a  ruling  elder  of  the  church  ;  and  accompany  this 
act  by  an  exhortation,  prayer,  and  other  proceedings,  as  he  may  deem  suitable  and 
expedient. 


INSTALLATION  NOT  ESSENTIAL  TO  VALIDITY.  297 

Turrettin  remarks,  that  in  reference  to  ordination  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  church  officers,  we  must  distinguish  between  "  essential,  and 
accidentals."  To  make  forms  essential  is  the  essence  of  formalistic 
ritualism,  and  utterly  subversive  of  God's  law,  and  of  the  best  interests 
of  the  State  and  of  the  Church.  What  is  marriage  but  the  covenant 
between  one  man  and  one  woman  to  live  together  as  man  and  wife, 
according  to  God's  ordinance?  Wherever  this  covenant  is  made, 
there,  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  m  fero  conseientice,  is  marriage.  Dif- 
ferent States  have  enacted  different  laws  prescribing  the  forms  or  cir- 
cumstances which  should  attend  this  contract  and  the  modes  in  which 
it  shall  be  attested  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  all  living  under  such  laws  to 
conform  to  them.  But  suppose  that  from  ignorance  or  recklessness  any 
of  them  are  neglected,  is  the  contract  null  and  void  ?  To  answer  in 
the  affirmative  is  to  trample  the  law  of  God  under  foot.  For  a  long 
time  the  laws  of  England  required  that  all  marriages  should  be  sol- 
emnized in  church  by  an  episcopally  ordained  minister,  and  within 
canonical  hours.  While  these  laws  were  in  force,  it  was  the  duty  of 
all  Englishmen  to  obey  them.  But  suppose  any  man  was  married  by 
a  Presb}i;erian  minister,  after  twelve  o'clock,  noon,  would  his  marriage 
in  the  sight  of  God  be  void,  and  would  it  be  pronounced  void  by  the 
civil  courts,  without  doing  violence  to  the  divine  law  ?  In  like  manner, 
ordination  is  the  declaration  of  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  through 
its  appointed  agents,  that  a  certain  man  is  called  to  the  ministry. 
The  Church  directs  that  this  judgment  shall  be  signified  in  a  certain 
way,  and  with  certain  prescribed  solemnities,  such  as  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery.  Suppose  any  of  these  prescribed  formalities 
are  neglected ;  suppose  the  presbytery  omit  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
(as  we  have  known  very  recently  to  be  done,)  is  the  ordination  void  ? 
No  man  but  a  Papist  or  Puseyite  would  answer,  Yes.  In  the  case  of 
a  ruling  elder,  the  choice  of  the  church,  and  the  consent  of  the  person 
chosen,  is  all  that  is  essential.  The  rest  is  ceremonial.  Prescribed 
forms  should  be  observed ;  the  neglect  of  them  should  be  censured. 
But  to  make  them  essential  is,  in  our  view,  to  abandon  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  Protestantism  and  of  common  sense.  It  would  inval- 
idate the  acts  of  half  the  sessions  in  the  country. 

This  matter  of  installation  of  elders  is  very  much  a  novelty.  We 
believe  it  is  unknown  in  the  Scottish  and  Continental  Churches.  We 
have  no  objection  to  it.  We  are  perfectly  willing  it  should  be  "  en- 
joined," and  we  think  the  injunction  ought  to  be  complied  with  ;  but 
we  must  renounce  our  Protestantism  before  we  can  believe  that  an  un- 
installed  elder  is  no  elder.  Some  years  since,  an  Episcopalian  in  Ire- 
land was  married  to  a  Presbyterian  woman,  the  rite  being  solemnized 
by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  whereas  the  law  at  that  time  required  that 


298  CHURCH  POLITY. 

■when  either  party  belonged  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  officiating 
clergyman  should  be  an  Episcopalian.  The  man  repudiated  his  wife, 
and  made  her  children  bastards.  In  some  of  our  States  the  law  re- 
quires a  marriage  license.  A  young  girl,  ignorant  of  that  fiict,  is  mar- 
ried without  a  license,  and  her  marriage  is  pronounced  void.  Is  this 
right  ?  Certainly  it  is,  if  the  neglect  of  prescribed  forms  be  allowed 
to  vitiate  solemn  contracts.  Mr.  Waller  asserted  "  that  Mr.  Smalley, 
the  ruling  elder  in  question,  was  unanimously  elected,  after  due  and 
sufficient  notice,"  and  was  immediately  invited  to  take  his  seat  in  the 
session,  and  did  so.  This  was  almost  a  month  before  the  trial.  Any 
principle  which  would  invalidate  his  official  acts  would  justify  the  re- 
pudiation of  a  wife  under  the  circumstances  just  stated.  If  a  man  sells 
an  estate,  and  receives  the  money  for  it,  and  then  refuses  to  recognize 
it  because  of  technical  defect  in  the  papers,  it  would  be  universally 
considered  an  outrage,  because  everything  essential  to  a  sale  had  been 
done,  and  the  failure  was  in  unessential  and  variable  formalities. 
However,  therefore,  we  may  be  disposed  to  insist  on  certain  forms  at- 
tending induction  into  Church  offices,  do  not  let  us  do  as  Romanists 
do,  exalt  forms  into  substance. 

§  9.  The  Right  of  Elders  to  exhort  aud  to  expound  the  Scrip- 
tures. [*] 

[Form  of  Oov.,  cliap.  v. — Digest  of  1S73,  p.  117.] 

Dr.  "VVaddel  said  he  desired  to  bring  up  a  paper  from  the  Tombeck- 
bee  Presbytery,  which  he  had  been  requested  by  the  delegate  from  that 
Presbytery  to  bring  before  the  Assembly,  as  the  delegate  himself  had 
failed  to  arrive.  It  could  not  legally  come  before  the  Assembly  he 
knew,  but  might  do  so  in  an  informal  way,  by  consent  of  the  Assem- 
bly. It  was  a  request  of  the  Presbytery  to  the  Assembly  to  review  its 
former  deliverance  on  the  subject  of  ruling  elders  conducting  reli- 
gious service  and  expounding  the  Scriptures. 

Dr.  Waddel  moved  that  the  paper  be  received  by  the  Assembly.  Dr.  Adger 
seconded  ihis  resolution  in  order  to  offer  an  amendment  to  it,  as  follows :  "  Whereas, 
the  last  Assembly,  near  the  close  of  its  meetings,  aud  probably  therefore,  with 
some  degree  of  haste,  in  adopting  the  report  of  their  Committee  on  the  Records  of 
the  Synod  of  Mississippi,  did  sanction  the  principle  that  a  ruling  elder,  in  the 
absence  of  the  pastor,  may  read  the  Scriptures  and  explain  thcra,  and  endeavour 
to  enforce  the  truth  by  suitable  exhortations ;  and  whereas  the  notice  of  this  body 
has  been  called  to  the  subject  by  representations  on  the  part  of  a  Presbytery  of  that 
Synod,  therefore  be  it  resolved  by  this  Assembly,  that  explaining  the  Scriptures, 
and  enforcing  the  truth  by  exhortation,  form  no  part  of  the  official  duty  of  ruling 

[*  From  Article  on  "The  General  Assembly,"  topic  same,  Princeton  Review,  1857, 
p.  487.] 


RELATIVE  POWEES  OF  ELDEES  AND  DEACONS.  299 

elders.  At  the  same  time  it  is  earnestly  recommended  by  this  Assembly,  in  the 
language  of  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  our  Formof  Government,  that  every  vacant 
congregation  meet  together,  on  the  Lord's  day,  at  one  or  more  places,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  prayer,  singing  praises,  and  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures,  together  with 
the  works  of  such  approved  divines  as  the  Presbytery  in  whose  bounds  they  are 
may  recommend,  and  they  may  be  able  to  procure  :  and  that  the  elders  or  deacons 
be  the  persons  who  shall  preside,  and  select  the  portions  of  Scriptures,  and  of  the 
other  books  to  be  read,  and  to  see  that  the  whole  be  conducted  in  a  becoming  and 
orderly  way." 


The  decision  of  the  Assembly  is  certainly  in  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  the  Church  in  all  parts  of  our  country  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted. In  Dr.  Green's  congregation,  in  Philadel2:)hia,  the  eldera 
held  weekly  meetings  in  diflferent  parts  of  the  city,  in  which  they  read 
the  Scriptures  and  exhorted  the  people,  explaining  and  applying  the 
portion  read.  In  the  French  Protestant  Churches,  where  the  same 
pastor  serves  several  congregations,  it  is  customary  for  him  to  set  one 
of  his  elders  to  supply  his  place  when  he  is  engaged  in  some  other  part 
of  his  charge.  Every  head  of  a  Christian  family  and  almost  every  pri- 
vate member  of  the  Church  does  more  or  less  of  the  duty  here  en- 
joined. It  is  hard  to  see  why  the  elders  alone  should  be  debarred  the 
privilege.  It  would  require  very  stringent  laws,  and  more  power 
than  any  Assembly  possesses,  to  prevent  zealous  elders  from  exhorting 
sinners  to  repent  and  turn  unto  God  and  live. 

1 10.  Relative  Powers  of  Elders  and  Deaeons.  [*] 

\_Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  vi.     Digest  of  1873,  p.  119.] 

Dr.  Breckinridge  reported  the  following  Overture.  Has  a  Church 
session  any  control  over  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the  deacons  for  the 
poor  of  the  Church  ?  or  does  the  control  belong  to  the  deacons  ? 
Or  what  power  has  the  session  in  the  premises  ?  The  first  of  these 
questions  the  Committee  recommend  should  he  answered  in  the 
negative ;  the  second  in  the  affirmative ;  and  the  third,  by  saying  that 
the  session  may  advise  as  to  the  use  of  the  fiinds  in  the  hands  of  the 
deacoiLs. 

This  subject  occasioned  some  little  debate,  perhaps  from  the  fact  that 
the  limitations  of  the  question  were  not  at  first  perceived.  The  ques- 
tion was  not,  which  was  the  governing  power,  deacons  or  elders  ?  Nor 
which  had  the  right  to  raise  and  to  control  the  general  contributions  of 
the  Church  ?    Nor  even  Avhich  body  had  control  over  the  contribu- 

[* From  article  on  "The  General  Assembly;"  topic  ssnue,  Princeton  Review, 
1857,  p.  471.] 


300  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tions  made  specifically  for  the  poor  ?  But  simply  which  had  the  right 
to  determine  on  the  distribution  of  money  designed  for  the  poor,  and  al- 
ready in  the  hands  of  the  deacons  ?  That  is,  to  decide  who  shall  re- 
ceive it,  and  how  much  should  be  given  to  A.,  and  how  much  to  B. 
The  question  was  thus  reduced  to  a  very  small  point.  As  soon  as  the 
Assembly  discovered  this,  they  cut  short  the  debate,  and  adopted'  the 
report  of  the  committee. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   PKESBYTEEY. 

§  1.    Qnornm  of  Presbytery.  [«] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  vii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  139-144,  205,  551.] 

In  answer  to  a  question  proposed  in  Overture  No.  20,  the  committee 
reported  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  any  three  ministers  of  a  presbytery,  being  regularly  convened, 
are  a  quorum  competent  to  the  transaction  of  all  business,  agreeably  to  the  pro- 
vision contained  in  the  Form  of  Government,  ch.  x.  I  7.  This  resolution  was 
adopted,  yeas  83,  nays  35. 

We  have  seen  no  report  of  the  debate  on  this  motion,  but  from  the  protest  pre- 
sented by  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  Junkin,  for  themselves  and  twenty  other 
members,  we  gather  that  the  leading  objections  to  the  ground  taken  bythe  Assem- 
bly were  substantially  as  follows  :  1.  It  was  said  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  constitution,  which  declares  a  presbytery  to  consist  of  all  the 
ministers  and  one  ruling  elder,  from  each  congregation  within  a  certain  district. 
As  a  presbytery  is  said  to  consist  of  ministers  and  elders,  these  form  its  constituent 
elements  ;  and  the  body  cannot  be  formed  of  only  one  of  its  constituent  elements. 
The  section  which  says  that  three  members  regularly  convened,  and  as  many  elders 
as  may  be  present,  constitute  a  quorum  of  presbytery,  shows  that  at  least  one 
elder  is  indispensable  in  order  to  the  regular  organization  of  a  presbytery. 

2.  In  sec.  10  of  ch.  x.  which  provides  for  the  calling  of  extra  meetings  of  pres- 
bytery, it  is  required  that  at  least  two  elders  should  join  in  the  call  for  such  a 
meeting,  and  that  due  notice  should  be  given  to  the  session  of  every  vacant  con- 
gregation. This  was  supposed  to  prove  that  the  elders  are  an  essential  part  of  the 
presbytery,  and  that  the  constitution  designed  to  guard  against  any  assumption  of 
power  by  the  ministry,  to  the  neglect  or  exclusion  of  the  eldership. 

3.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly  was  declared  to  be  opposed  to  principles  essen- 
tial to  the  nature  and  existence  of  Presbyterianism.  It  was  represented  as  an 
essential  element  of  Presbyterianism  that  God's  people  govern  themselves,  and 
manage  their  ecclesiastical  affairs,  in  accordance  with  his  word  and  by  their 
own  chosen  and  ordained  representatives.  The  elders  are  declared  to  be  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  to  exercise  discipline  and  government  in  connection 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  ;  "  topic  same  ;  Frinccton  Review, 
1843,  p.  444.  J 


QUORUM  OF  PEESBYTERY.  301 

with  the  ministers.  If  this  principle  be  destroyed  the  whole  system  is  destroyed. 
Admit  the  principle  that  the  ministry  may,  without  the  presence  of  any  represen- 
tatives of  God's  people,  transact  the  business  of  the  people,  and  you  lay  our  glori- 
ous system  of  representative  republicanism  in  ruins;  and  over  those  ruins  you  may 
easily  pave  a  highway  to  prelacy  and  popery.  As  every  act  which  a  presbytery 
may  perform,  affects  the  interestsof  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  they  are  entitled 
to  be  represented ;  and  it  was  wise  in  the  framers  of  our  constitution  to  provide  that 
the  people's  business  should  never  be  done,  unless  the  people  had  at  least  one  re- 
presentative to  see  to  their  interests,  and  to  watch  those  encroachments  of  the  min- 
isterial order,  which  had  resulted  in  one  papacy  and  might  lead  to  another. 

4.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly  was  uncalled  for  and  tends  to  weaken  the  im- 
portance of  the  eldership,  by  representing  that  their  presence  in  our  presbyteries 
is  not  necessary  and  might  be  undesirable. 

5.  The  impatience  of  the  house  prevented  a  full  and  fair  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  the  chief  reasons  urged  in  favour  of  the  decision  were  drawn  from  extreme 
cases,  not  likely  to  occur,  and  which  were  injurious  to  the  eldership  as  supposing 
they  would  be  so  negligent  of  their  vows  as  with  any  frequency  to  absent  them- 
selves from  our  church  courts. 

Eev.  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  J.  Montgomery  subjoined  for  themselves  to  this 
protest  an  expression  of  their  opinion  that  the  above  decision  appropriately,  and 
of  necessity  flowed  from  the  decision  previously  made,  that  the  constitution  does 
not  authorize  ruling  elders  to  unite,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  in  the  ordination 
of  ministers.  Against  both  of  these  decisions  they  desired  to  protest,  striking,  as 
they  believed  them  to  do,  at  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  constitution. 

To  these  protests  the  Assembly  recorded  an  answer,  with  the  help  of 
which  we  construct  the  following  brief  reply.  The  protest  seems  to 
proceed  on  an  erroneous  idea  of  the  nature  of  a  presbyterj^ ;  as  though 
it  were  a  creature  of  our  constitution.  A  presbytery  is  a  number  of 
presbyters  regularly  convened.  Their  powers  belong  to  their  office; 
and  they  are  clothed  with  that  office  by  their  ordination.  A  number 
of  ministers  episcopally  ordained,  might  associate  themselves  together 
and  form  a  presbytery,  and  would,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Presby- 
terianism,  have  the  right  to  ordain  and  to  exercise  all  the  powers  of 
discipline  and  government  over  their  own  members,  and  over  the  con- 
gregations submitting  to  their  watch  and  care,  that  belong  to  any  pres- 
bytery in  the  world.  It  is,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
a  presbytery  that  ruling  elders  should  constitute  a  portion  of  its  mem- 
bers. 

If  the  doctrine  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  this  protest  is  true,  that 
ruling  elders  are  "an  essential  element  of  a  presbytery,"  indispensable 
to  its  nature  and  existence,  then  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  presbytery 
in  the  world  for  a  long  series  of  ages ;  then  we  must  deny  the  validity 
of  the  orders,  or  at  least  of  the  early  ordinations  of  all  Protestant 
Churches,  for  it  is  certain  that  their  ministers  were  not  ordained  by 
presbyteries  of  which  ruling  elders  were  members.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  Scriptures  or  in  our  Confession  that  authorizes  such  a  doctrine. 


302  CHURCH  POLITY. 

It  may  however  be  said  that  although  ruling  elders  are  not  indis- 
pensable to  the  existence  of  a  presbytery,  yet  under  our  constitution  the 
presence  of  one  or  more  ruling  elders  is  necessary  to  the  regular  consti- 
tution and  action  of  a  presbytery  in  our  Church,  This  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent point ;  yet  it  would  appear  that  the  great  reason  for  the  adoption 
of  the  particular  construction  of  the  constitution  presented  in  the  pro- 
test is  to  be  found  in  the  doctrine  that  ruling  elders  are  essential  to  the 
existence  of  any  presbytery.  Apart  from  this  preconceived  idea  of  the 
nature  of  a  presbytery,  the  constitution  gives  very  little  colour  to  the 
construction  put  upon  it  by  the  protest.  When  it  is  said  that  the  pres- 
bytery "  consists  of  all  the  ministers  and  one  ruling  elder  from  each 
congregation  within  a  certain  district,"  the  constitution  merely  teaches 
of  what  materials  a  presbytery  may  be  comjoosed :  it  says  nothing  as  to 
what  is  necessary  to  its  regular  constitution.  It  does  not  say  that  a 
presbytery  must  consist  of  all  the  ministers,  or  that  there  must  be  an 
elder  from  each  congregation.  It  is  very  rare  indeed  that  a  presbytery 
in  point  of  fact  consists  of  all  the  ministers  and  all  the  elders  who  have 
a  right  to  be  present.  Thus  the  General  Assembly,  it  is  said,  shall 
consist  of  an  equal  delegation  of  bishops  and  elders  from  each  presby- 
tery. But  who  has  ever  seen  such  a  General  Assembly?  These  clauses, 
therefore,  teach  nothing  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  form  a  presbytery 
competent  to  proceed  to  business.  But  does  not  the  section  which  says 
that  any  three  ministers  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present,  &c., 
shall  be  a  quorum,  teach  that  the  presence  of  at  least  one  elder  is  neces- 
sary for  that  purpose?  We  do  not  think  this  construction  would  be 
put  upon  that  clause  by  any  who  was  not  possessed  with  the  idea 
that  there  can  be  no  presbytery  without  ruling  elders.  If  any  number 
of  ministers  regularly  convened  is  a  presbytery,  and  if  our  book  recog- 
nises the  right  of  elders  to  sit  and  vote  as  members  of  presbytery,  then 
we  think  the  plain  sense  of  the  above  clause  is.  That  three  is  the  small- 
est number  of  ministers  that,  in  our  Church,  can  act  as  a  presbytery, 
and  when  regularly  convened  may  proceed  to  business  together  with 
any  elders  who  may  be  present.  The  ministers  constitute  the  presby- 
tery; they  are  the  permanent  members  of  the  body;  in  that  body  each 
session  has  a  right  to  be  represented  by  one  elder.  This  we  consider 
the  plain  meaning  of  our  book.  Elders  have  a  right  to  come,  and  it 
is  very  important  they  should  come,  but  they  are  not  compelled 
to  come,  nor  is  their  presence  necessary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
body.  • 

Had  the  framers  of  our  constitution  intended  to  introduce  the  novel 
idea  that  there  could  be  no  presbytery,  without  ruling  elders,  they 
would  doubtless  have  said,  Three  ministers  and  at  least  one  ruling  el- 
der, shall  be  necessary  to  form  a  quorum.     But  as  they  have  not  said 


QUORUM  OF  PRESBYTERY.  303 

this,  or  anything  equivalent  to  it,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  they 
intended  to  lay  down  any  such  rule. 

2.  It  is  further  argued  that  the  decision  is  hostile  to  what  is  declared 
to  be  a  principle  essential  to  the  very  nature  and  existence  of  Presby- 
terianism,  viz.,  that  God's  people  should  govern  themselves,  and  man- 
age their  own  ecclesiastical  affairs,  in  accordance  with  his  word  and  by 
their  own  chosen  and  ordained  representatives.  The  first  remark  to  be 
made  on  this  argument  is,  that  the  decision  protested  against,  has  no 
special  hostility  to  that  principle.  Ministers  are  just  as  much  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  people  as  elders  are.  Both  are  chosen  by  the  peo- 
ple to  their  stations  in  the  Church  ;  neither  have  any  authority  over 
any  congregation,  not  voluntarily  subject  to  their  watch  and  care  ;  and 
at  the  same  time  neither  derives  his  authority  from  the  people,  nor  is 
either  responsible  to  them.  Both  classes  stand,  as  far  as  this  point  is 
concerned,  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  people  ;  and  a  presby- 
tery composed  entirely  of  ministers,  is  no  more  hostile  to  the  principle 
that  "  God's  people  govern  themselves,"  than  a  presbytery  composed 
entirely  of  ruling  elders. 

But,  secondly,  we  demur  to  the  principle  itself.  It  is  no  part  of  our 
Presbyterianism  that  God's  people  govern  themselves,  any  more  than 
that  a  family  governs  itself.  In  other  words,  in  the  Christian  Church, 
as  in  a  Christian  family,  the  power  and  authority  of  the  rulers  do  not 
come  from  the  people,  but  from  Christ.  He  committed  the  power  to 
teach  and  rule  to  certain  officers ;  and  directed  them  to  communicate 
the  same  authority  to  others.  All  the  power  they  have  comes  from 
him  ;  the  power  goes  with  the  commission,  which  is  received  in  each 
case  from  the  officers  and  not  from  the  members  of  the  Church.  This 
is  just  as  true  in  the  case  of  ruling  elders  as  of  ministers.  .  The  author- 
ity to  exercise  the  power  inherent  in  their  respective  offices  over  any 
congregation  depends  on  the  ■will  of  that  congregation,  but  not  the 
power  itself.  If  I  am  ordained  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  I  have  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  attached  by  Christ  to  that  office ;  but  I  have  no 
authority  over  any  congregation  that  does  not  choose  me  as  their  pas- 
tor, or  that  does  not  voluntarily  subject  itself  to  the  presbytery  of  which 
I  am  a  member.  Whether  this  is  republicanism  or  not,  we  do  not 
know,  and  are  not  careful  to  inquire,  seeing  we  are  persuaded  it  is  the 
order  which  Christ  has  established  in  his  own  house  for  edification  and 
not  for  destruction.  We  are  persuaded  also,  that  no  man  can  show 
philosophically,  that  such  power,  or  such  a  theory  of  the  Church,  is 
peculiarly  liable  to  abuse  ;  or  historically,  that  it  has  ever  led  to  any 
serious  or  lasting  evils.  As  in  the  case  of  a  family,  the  authority  of 
the  parent,  derived  from  God,  and  independent  of  the  will  of  the  child- 
ren, is  in  general  restrained  within  proper  bounds  by  natural  affec- 


304  CHURCH  POLITY. 

tion ;  so  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  authority  of  its  officers,  though 
derived  from  Christ,  is  effectually  restrained  by  two  important  limita- 
tions. The  one  is,  that  it  neither  extends  over  the  conscience,  nor  is 
armed  with  any  power  to  inflict  civil  pains  or  penalties.  It  is  simply 
ministerial  and  spiritual.  If  Presbyterian  ministers  or  elders  inflict 
any  censure  contrary  to  God's  word,  it  is,  by  their  own  doctrine,  innbx- 
ious  and  nugatory.  They  pretend  to  no  power,  but  to  declare  and  exe- 
cute the  commands  of  Christ ;  and  any  man,  who  sees  that  their  acts 
are  not  authorized  by  those  commands,  feels  himself  unhurt  by  any 
thing  they  can  do  to  him.  The  other  limitation  is,  that  the  submission 
of  the  people  even  to  this  ministerial  and  spiritual  authority,  is  volun- 
tary, enforced  by  no  other  than  moral  considerations,  which  submission 
is  a  matter  of  duty  only  when  the  rules  of  the  word  of  God  are  adhered 
to.  When  we  say  that  the  subjection  of  the  people  to  the  legitimate 
authority  of  their  spiritual  rulers,  is  voluntary,  we  do  not  mean  that 
they  are  under  no  moral  obligation  to  unite  themselves  with  the  Church, 
and  to  submit  to  its  discipline ;  but  that  this  is  a  voluntary  and  rational 
subjection.  It  is  free  for  them  to  decide  with  what  Church  they  will 
connect  themselves,  and  how  long  that  connection  shall  continue,  sub- 
ject only  to  their  responsibility  to  God.  If  the  people  wish  more  liber- 
ty than  this  they  must  go  where  the  Bible  is  unknown.  There  is  no 
tendency  therefore  in  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  to  foster  tyranny  in 
the  Church,  or  to  introduce  popery ;  and  we  presume  the  protesters 
themselves  feel  very  little  uneasiness  on  that  point.  They  cannot  but 
know  that  the  source  of  priestly  power  is  false  doctrine.  So  long  as 
the  people  have  unimpeded  access  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  are  not  taught 
that  it  is  only  through  the  hands  of  their  ministers,  that  they  can  ob- 
tain pardon  and  salvation,  their  liberties  are  secure.  The  truth  makes 
and  will  ever  keep  men  free. 

3.  The  only  other  ground  of  protest  is  that  the  decision  in  question, 
tends  to  disparage  the  eldership  and  to  discourage  their  attendance  on 
our  presbyteries.  We  cannot  see  the  force  of  this  objection.  Does  the 
clause  declaring  that  only  three  ministers  are  required  to  form  a  quo- 
rum, tend  to  disparage  the  other  members  of  the  body,  as  though  they 
were  of  so  little  account,  that  the  presbytery  can  dispense  with  their 
attendance,  and  would  be  glad  to  have  as  few  of  them  as  possible? 
The  complaint  that  the  eldership  are  undervalued  and  denied  their 
just  influence  in  the  Church,  is  one  of  the  most  unfounded  that  can  be 
made.  The  influence  of  a  man  in  our  judicatories  depends  far  more  on 
his  personal  qualiflcations  than  on  his  station.  It  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  a  weak  and  ignorant  man,  be  he  elder  or  minister,  can  have  the 
weight  with  his  brethren  which  a  man  of  talent  and  learning,  whether 
minister  or  elder,   possesses.      The  protestants   must  have  observed 


ORDINATION  BY  LESS  THAN  THREE  MINISTERS.       305 

that  there  were  elders  on  the  floor  of  the  last  Assembly,  who  were 
listened  to  with  a  deference  manifested  towards  few  ministers,  and 
whose  judgments  had  a  weight  of  which  few  clerical  members  of  the 
house  could  boast.  As  far  as  we  have  observed,  it  is  always  the 
case,  that,  other  things  being  equal,  the  influence  of  elders  in  our  pub- 
lic bodies  is  greater  than  that  of  ministers.  And  what  is  much  to 
their  credit,  they  have  sense  enough  to  see  and  acknowledge  it.  These 
complaints  of  their  being  undervalued,  are  almost  always  from  minis- 
ters ;  and  are  to  the  elders  themselves  matters  of  surprise  and  some- 
times of  amusement.  The  true  influence  of  any  set  of  men  dej)ends  in  a 
great  measure  in  their  acting  in  their  appropriate  sphere.  The  influ- 
ence of  the  clergy  is  not  to  be  increased,  by  their  acting  as  laymen ;  nor 
that  of  laymen  by  their  acting  as  clergymen.  The  value  of  the  office 
of  ruling  elder,  we  hold  to  be  inestimable ;  but  it  depends  upon  his  be- 
ing a  ruling  elder,  with  rights,  duties,  and  privileges  distinct  from 
those  of  the  minister ;  on  his  being,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word, 
a  layman  and  not  a  clergyman. 

§  2,    Ordination  by  less  tlian  Three  Ministers.  I*] 

IForm  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  145-149.] 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes,  of  the  committee  on  the  Minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  West  Tennessee,  recommended  that  the  Records  be  approved, 
with  the  exception,  that  the  Synod  sanctioned  the  action  of  the  Hol- 
stein  Presbytery  in  ordaining  a  licentiate,  when  but  two  ministers  were 
present.  The  committee  recommended  that  the  Assembly  express 
their  strong  disapprobation  of  this  measure,  and  declare  that  the 
Synod  should  not  have  countenanced  the  proceedings  of  the  Holstein 
Presbytery. 

Mr.  Walter  Lowrie  moved  that  the  exception  be  stricken  out  from  this  Report. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Doak,  (one  of  the  fathers  of  Presbyterianism  in  the  West,)  remem- 
bered all  the  circumstances  of  this  case.  At  that  very  session  there  was  a  quorum 
present,  by  -whom  all  the  trials  and  preliminary  exercises  were  approved,  and  the 
candidate  was  actually  on  his  knees,  and  the  hands  of  the  two  ministers  were  on 
the  candidate's  head,  when  they  discovered  the  third  brother  had  absented  him- 
self. They  consulted  as  to  what  should  be  done,  and  concluded  that  as  everything 
else  had  been  done  in  so  orderly  amanner,  the  want  of  a  third  minister's  hand  was 
not  indispensable,  and  they  therefore  proceeded  to  ordain  him.  It  seems  hard 
that  one  single  member  of  a  presbytery  should  arrest  the  proceeding  of  a  pres- 
bytery in  such  solemn  circumstances,  and  before  a  large  congregation.     They  ad- 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assembly;^'  topic,  "  Ordination;"   Princeton 
Beview,  1850,  p.  477.] 
20 


306  CHURCH  POLITY. 

mitted  there  ■was  the  appearance  of  wrong.    He  did  not  know  whether  the  third 

brother  had  gone  out  of  the  house  or  not. 

**  ********* 

Eev.  Dr.  Murray  said,  the  question  is  a  very  simple  one  between  irregularity 
and  invalidity.  The  ordination  here  is  irregular,  as  the  Synod  state ;  but  they 
refuse  to  say  that  the  ordination  was  invalid,  and  this  the  committee  wish  ,the 
Assembly  to  censure.  He  was  persuaded  the  Assembly  would  not  concur  in  this 
censure,  and  thereby  pronounce  this  ordination  invalid. 

Eev.  Dr.  Rice.  The  Presbyterian  Church  is  regulated  by  the  Bible,  as  the 
great  and  highest  resort,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  its  exponent.  "Whilst  the 
Confession  of  Faith  requires  three  ministers  in  order  to  ordination,  it  no  where 
declares  that  without  three,  there  can  be  no  ordination.  Nor  does  the  Bible  any 
where  specify  "  three "  as  the  number  necessary  to  ordain.  It  simply  requires 
plurality.  "When  we  wish  to  determine  what  is  regular,  we  go  to  our  Form  of 
Government ;  if  to  ascertain  what  is  valid,  we  resort  to  the  Bible.  If  two  minis- 
ters are  present,  we  cannot  say  that  the  Bible  does  not  sanction  the  ordination. 
The  number  specified  in  our  book  is  merely  for  prudential  reasons. 
*******  **** 

Tlie  exceptions  in  the  report  were  stricken  out,  and  the  Synod  was 
not  censured  for  approving  the  conduct  of  the  presbytery  in  this 
ordination. 

In  this  decision  we  presume  the  great  body  of  the  Church  will  con- 
cur. As  the  brethren,  whose  remarks  are  quoted  above,  state,  there  is 
the  greatest  possible  difference  between  irregular  and  invalid.  Eules 
are  laid  down  for  security,  and  to  be  faithfully  observed  in  ordinary 
circumstances.  But  the  neglect  or  violation  of  the  rules  prescribing 
how  a  thing  ought  to  be  done,  does  not  vitiate  the  thing  done.  In 
many  countries  and  Churches  there  are  rules  regulating  the  celebration 
of  marriage,  but  how  monstrous  would  it  be  that  the  disregard  of  such 
municipal  regulations  should  make  the  marriage  void.  That  this  is 
sometimes  done,  as  in  Great  Britain,  is  justly  regarded  as  a  grievous 
injustice.  Some  years  ago  it  was  decided  that  a  marriage  in  Ireland, 
solemnized  by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  where  one  of  the  parties  was 
an  Episcopalian,  was  no  marriage.  It  would  be  a  decision  of  like, 
though  of  less  enormity,  to  'affirm  that  an  ordination  by  less  than  three 
ministers  was  no  ordination.  *  *  *  *  "^yg  recognize  the  validity 
of  orders  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  all  classes  of  Presbyterians 
have  always  done  so,  with  what  consistency,  then,  can  we  maintain 
that  three,  or  even  a  plurality  of  ordainers  is  absolutely  necessary  ?  A 
plurality  may  be  desirable  in  all  possible  cases ;  the  precise  number, 
three,  may  be  the  safest  minimum  that  could  be  fixed  on  as  the  gen- 
eral rule,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  ordination,  and 
nothing  in  the  laws  of  Christ  which  makes  that  number  essential.  "We 
have  derived  the  rule  from  the  old  canon  law,  as  laid  down  in  the 


PEESBYTERY  JUDGES  QUALIFICATIOXS  OF  MEMBERS.      307 

earliest  councils  of  the  Christian  Church,  which  required  the  co-opera- 
tion of  three  bishops  in  the  ordination  or  consecration  of  another 
bishop.  This  became  the  universal  law  of  the  Church,  and  of  all 
Churches,  and  was  from  its  obvious  wisdom  adopted  by  the  different 
classes  of  Protestants  at  the  Reformation.  But  it  has  ever  been  re- 
garded as  a  prudential  municipal  arrangement,  necessary  to  the  safety 
of  the  Church,  but  not  to  the  validity  of  the  service.  In  our  own 
Church  the  same  principle  has  been  acted  on.  In  the  early  part  of 
our  history,  it  was  customary  to  ordain  by  a  committee  of  presbytery, 
as  well  as  by  the  presbytery  itself.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Leland  indeed,  is 
reported  to  have  said,  "  Installation  can  be  performed  by  a  committee 
of  two  ministers,  but  the  power  of  ordination  cannot  be  delegated." 
If  this  means  simply  that  under  our  present  constitution  such  is  the 
rule,  it  may  be  correct.  But  if,  as  we  suppose  was  intended,  the  sen- 
tence quoted  means  that  according  to  the  principles  of  Presbyterianism 
"  the  power  of  ordination  cannot  be  delegated,"  it  is  obviously  contra- 
dicted by  the  practice  of  our  own  Church,  by  the  express  enactments 
of  the  Westminster  Directory,  and  the  history  of  the  Church,  in  all  its 
Presbyterian  branches. 

The  fact  that  a  single  minister  ordains  elders  not  merely  in  the 
midst  of  his  session,  or  parochial  presbytery,  but  when  acting  as  an 
evangelist  and  organizing  churches,  shows,  at  least  to  those  who  make 
ruling  elders  to  be  bishops,  that  according  even  to  our  present  constitu- 
tion a  single  bishop  may  ordain  others  to  the  episcopate.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  our  argument.  The  real  question  is,  what  is  ordination  ? 
and  what  is  essential  to  the  transmission  of  the  ministerial  office  ?  All 
admit  that  under  our  constitution,  which  accords  in  this  matter  with 
the  general  law  of  the  Church,  three  ministers  should  be  present  and 
co-operate  in  the  ordination  services.  Any  departure  from  this  rule  is 
an  irregularity,  to  be  justified  only  in  cases  of  emergency.  But  the 
departure,  even  when  not  justifiable,  is  to  be  censured  as  disorderly,  but 
not  considered  as  rendering  the  ordination  void. 

?  3.  Presbyteryjadges  the  Qualifications  of  its  :}Ieinbers.  [*] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  150-161.] 

The  memorial  presented  to  the  Assembly  by  the  members  of  the 
Pittsburg  convention,  in  their  individual  capacity  as  ministers  and  el- 
ders of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  was  referred  to  Drs.  Miller,  Hoge, 
Edgar,  Messrs.  Elliot,  Stonestreet,  and  Banks.     This  committee  made 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  topic;  "  The  Pittsburg  Memorial;" 
Princeton  Review,  1835,  p.  461. J 


308  CHURCH  POLITY. 

a  report  consisting  of  a  preamble  and  eleven  resolutions.  The  first 
resolution  asserts  the  right  of  every  presbytery  to  be  satisfied  with  the 
soundness  and  good  character  of  those  ministers  who  apply  for  admis- 
sion into  the  presbytery,  and,  if  they  see  cause,  to  examine  them,  al- 
though they  have  testimonials  of  good  standing  from  some  other  pres- 
bytery. 

This  resolution  was  opposed  on  the  following  grounds : 


1.  That  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  unity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
radical  principle  of  our  system  is,  th.at  the  several  congregations  of  believers  con- 
stitute one  Church  in  Christ ;  but  this  resolution  declares  that  the  Church  is  not 
one,  that  there  is  no  uniform  system  of  action  and  government  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  To  allow  the  presbyteries  to  determine  the  terms  of  membership  within 
their  own  bounds,  is  to  create  separate  churches  ;  it  is  to  make  ourselves  Congre- 
gationalists,  or  independent  Presbyterians.  The  constitution  declares  what  are 
the  qualifications  for  the  ministry;  and  if  any  Presbytery  enacts  a  different  rule, 
(making,  for  example,  the  knowledge  of  German  or  Sanscrit  necessary,)  it  puts 
itself,  quoad  hoc,  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  declares  itself  a 
different  body.  In  like  manner,  if  any  Church  session  should  undertake  to  pre- 
scribe new  terms  of  communion,  it  would  violate  the  constitution.  The  qualifi- 
cations for  the  ministry  and  terms  of  communion  are  prescribed  in  the  constitution, 
and  are  uniform  throughout  the  Church,  and  binding  alike  upon  all  the  presby- 
teries and  all  the  churches.  These  terms  cannot  be  altered  by  individual  presby- 
teries or  sessions.  If  they  can  add  to  them,  they  can  subtract  from  them:  but  to 
allow  this,  would  be  to  declare  that  the  presbyteries  were  without  government  in 
this  essential  particular.  When  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians  undertook  to  dis- 
pense with  some  of  the  requisites  prescribed  in  the  Form  of  Government,  they 
were  justly  separated  from  the  Church. 

2.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  respect  and  confidence  due  from  one  presbytery  to 
another.  To  subject  a  man,  who  has  been  declared  qualified  for  the  ministry  by 
one  presbytery,  to  an  examination  before  another,  is  to  say  that  we  doubt  the 
fidelity  or  competence  of  the  body  by  which  he  was  ordained.  This  is  incompa- 
tible not  only  with  proper  confidence,  but  also  with  the  rule  that  declares  that  the 
decisions  of  one  court  are  to  be  received  by  another.  It  thus  arrays  the  presby- 
teries against  each  other.  One  presbytery  pronounces  a  man  sound,  another  de- 
clares him  to  be  unsound ;  this  destroys  the  connection  between  the  presbyteries  ; 
it  is  a  complete  ecclesiastical  revolution,  the  destruction  of  Presbyterianism,  and 
the  establishment  of  independency. 

3.  The  rule  established  by  the  resolution  is  unjust  toward  the  applicant.  He 
may  have  tlie  confidence  of  the  presbytery  to  which  he  belongs  and  their  testi- 
monials of  his  good  standing,  and  yet  be  rejected  by  a  presbytery  where  he  is  not 
known,  and  without  any  fair  and  adequate  trial.  This  could  not  be  done  without 
injustice  and  injury.  It  is  admitted,  that  if  the  presbytery  has  reasonable  ground 
to  doubt  of  the  soundness  or  good  character  of  the  applicant,  this  is  a  sufficient 
reason  for  not  receiving  him,  but  not  for  examining  him.  His  own  presbytery 
should  be  informed  of  these  reasons — but  a  body  to  which  he  does  not  belong,  and 
to  which  he  is  not  amenable,  has  no  right  to  put  him  on  his  trial.  The  assump- 
tion of  this  right  is  not  only  unjust  to  the  individual,  but  it  produces  a  clashing 


PKESBYTERY  JUDGES  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  MEMBERS.     309 

jurisdiction.     A  jurisdiction  is  assumed  by  one  body,  while  that  of  a   co-ordinate 
body  still  remains. 

4.  The  resolution  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  ordination  in  our  Church. 
A  man  is  not  ordained  as  a  minister  within  the  bounds  of  one  presbytery,  but 
within  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church.  If  qualified  constitutionally  for  the 
bounds  of  one  presbytery,  he  is  equally  qualified  for  all  presbyteries.  If  one  pres- 
bytery is  to  rejudge  the  judgment  of  another  presbytery,  with  regard  to  a  man's 
Stan  ling  in  the  ministry,  the  idea  of  our  belonging  to  one  Presbyterian  Church  is  all 
a  farce. 

5.  This  resolution  being  directly  opposed  to  one  passed  by  the  last  General  As- 
sembly, its  passage  would  tend  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Assembly.  It 
would  be  better  to  have  no  court  of  final  appeal,  if  its  decisions  are  to  be  thus 
treated. 

6.  This  question  was  to  be  decided  upon  by  men  who  had  prejudged  the  case, 
who  stood  pledged  to  decide  in  a  certain  way. 

7.  This  resolution  goes  to  create  an  inquisitorial  court ;  it  places  a  man  before  a 
court  to  purge  himself  from  suspicion,  and  gives  to  a  foreign  presbytery  a  power 
which  even  a  man's  own  presbytery  does  not  possess. 

8.  It  was  argued  that  the  resolution  was  inexpedient,  because  it  could  not  ac- 
complish the  design  contemplated  by  it,  viz. :  to  keep  out  heresy.  It  would  ope- 
rate the  other  way.  If  an  unsound  presbytery  should  dismiss  a  man  to  a  sound 
one,  the  latter  would  have  him  in  their  power,  and  could  either  reform  him  or  cut 
him  off.  Thus  they  might  catch  one  heretic  after  another,  until  the  Church  was 
purified.  As  to  Church  members,  the  case  was  the  same.  Suppose  a  member  dis- 
missed from  one  Church  to  join  another;  he  comes  with  good  testimonials,  but  Ls 
refused.  What  Ls  he  to  do  ?  Is  he  to  go  back  into  the  world  and  be  refused  com- 
munion with  the  Church  ?  If  a  good  man,  this  would  be  monstrous  ;  and  if  a  bad 
one,  he  should  be  disciplined.  We  should  "receive  the  greatest  atheist  on  certifi- 
cate, and  rejoice  in  the  opportunity  of  thus  detecting  and  exposing  a  false  profes- 
sor of  religion,  and  removing  the  scandal  of  his  bad  example." 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

The  resolution  was  supported  by  Dr.  Hoge,  Dr.  Miller,  ^Mr.  Elliot, 
Mr.  "Winchester,  and  others.  The  arguments  principally  relied  upon 
are  the  following : 

1.  That  the  right  asserted  in  the  resolution  is  the  right  of  self-pre- 
servation, inherent  in  all  bodies,  and  independent  of  all  constitutions. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  a  right  derived  from  the  constitution — not  an  ac- 
quired, but  an  original  right.  Unless  there  could  be  adduced  decided 
evidence  that  this  right  had  been  voluntarily  relinquished  by  the  pres- 
bvteries,  it  must  be  assumed  as  still  in  existence.  The  onus  probandi, 
therefore,  was  entirely  on  the  other  side.  It  should  be  remembered, 
that  the  presbyteries  are  the  true  fountain  of  all  ecclesiastical  power. 
They  are  independent  bodies,  except  so  far  as  they  have  chosen  to  unite 
with  other  presbyteries,  and  cede  part  of  their  original  rights. 

2.  The  right  of  judging  of  the  qualifications  of  their  own  members, 
the  presbyteries  have  never  conceded.    No  express  declaration  of  con- 


310  CHUECH  POLITY. 

cession  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitution,  nor  is  any  sucli  declaration 
pretended  to  exist.  It  is  an  argument  of  induction.  It  is  attempted 
to  be  inferred  from  certain  provisions  of  the  constitution,  that  the  right 
in  question  has  been  tacitly  relinquished.  But  this  method  of  reason- 
ing on  such  a  question  is  very  unsatisfactory.  The  original  powers  and 
rights  of  contracting  bodies  should  not  be  reasoned  away ;  if  they  no 
longer  exist,  clear  evidence  of  their  having  been  knowingly  and  volun- 
tarily relinquished,  must  be  produced.  It  had  been  argued,  that  be- 
cause the  Church  is  one,  therefore  the  several  parts  or  separate  presby- 
teries have  no  right  to  judge  in  this  matter  for  themselves.  This  argu- 
ment, however  is  invalid,  because  their  union  is  by  compact,  and  can- 
not be  pressed  beyond  the  terms  of  that  compact.  The  presbyteries 
and  churches  are  one,  for  the  purposes  and  to  the  extent  declared  in 
the  constitution,  and  no  farther.  To  insist  that  the  union  was  such  as 
to  destroy  the  separate  existence  and  unconceded  rights  of  the  consti- 
tuent parts  of  the  body,  is  to  maintain  that  the  Church  is  consolidated, 
and  to  establish  a  complete  spiritual  despotism. 

That  no  such  union  really  exists  between  the  several  parts  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  is  plain,  because  a  member  of  one  presbytery  or  congre- 
gation does  not  become  ipso  facto  a  member  of  every  co-ordinate  body. 
His  admission  into  one  of  these  associations  gives  him  no  rights  in  others 
of  the  same  kind,  until  these  rights  are  voluntarily  conceded  to  him.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  member  of  one  presbytery  or  church  never  demands  ad- 
mission into  another ;  he  ashs  it ;  and  the  question  whether  his  request 
shall  be  granted  is  put  to  vote.  This  is  a  clear  recognition  of  the  right 
asserted  in  the  resolution,  for  the  right  of  voting  on  the  question  of  admis- 
sion is  the  right  of  deciding  it ;  it  is  the  right  of  saying  No  as  well  as  Yes. 
It  is  true,  that  the  presbyteries  have  agreed  on  certain  qualifications, 
which  they  have  promised  to  require  for  admission  into  the  ministry 
aud  into  Church  membership;  and  these  terms  of  admission  no  indi- 
vidual presbytery  or  church  has  any  right  to  alter.  Should  any  pres- 
bytery, therefore,  require  the  knowledge  of  Sanscrit,  or  dispense  with 
the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  (? !)  in  its  ministerial  members,  it  would  be  a 
violation  of  the  compact.  And  in  like  manner  it  would  be  unconstitu- 
tional to  make  the  mere  repetition  of  the  Lord's  prayer  the  test  of  fit- 
ness for  Church  membership.  It  is  also  true,  that  the  decision  of  one 
Church  court  that  the  qualifications  required  by  the  constitution  are, 
in  any  given  case,  possessed  by  any  individual,  should  be  respected  in 
all  other  courts.  Clean  papers,  or  regular  testimonials,  therefore,  are, 
it  is  readily  admitted  ^nma/acie  evidence  of  good  standing,  but  they 
are  not  conclusive  evidence.  They  are  not  such  evidence  as  cannot  be 
questioned  or  rebutted.  They  are  only  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the 
body  that  granted  them,  that  in  their  judgment,  and  to  the  best  of  their 


PKESBYTEKY  JUDGES  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  MEMBERS.     311 

knowledge,  the  person  to  whom  they  are  granted  has  the  constitutional 
qualifications  for  a  member  of  presbytery,  or  for  a  member  of  a  church. 
But  the  body  to  which  the  application  is  presented  may  know  better ; 
it  may  have  good  reason  for  doubting  the  correctness  of  the  judgment 
of  the  other  court,  and  it  certainly  has  the  right  to  have  those  doubts 
solved.  It  is  out  of  the  question  to  maintain,  that  because  one  Church 
session  thinks  a  man  a  Christian  and  fit  to  be  received  into  the  Church, 
all  other  sessions  are  bound  to  think  so  too,  whatever  evidence  they 
may  have  to  the  contrary. 

3.  The  right  in  question  has  always  been  asserted  and  exercised  by 
our  presbyteries  and  churches.  The  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Birch,  [*]  a 
foreign  minister,  is  generally  remembered.  He  applied  for  admission 
to  one  of  the  western  presbyteries.  They,  not  being  satisfied  that  he 
possessed  the  constitutional  qualifications,  refused  to  receive  him.  He 
complained  to  the  Assembly,  and  the  Assembly  examined  him,  and  de- 
clared themselves  satisfied.  They  did  not,  however,  order  the  western 
presbytery  to  receive  this  gentleman,  but  simply  authorized  any  pres- 
bytery that  saw  fit  to  admit  him  as  a  member.  He  was  received  by 
the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore,  and  although  he  continued  to  reside  in 
the  west,  he  retained  his  connection  with  that  presbytery.  It  was 
never  thought  or  pretended  that  because  the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore 
was  satisfied,  therefore  other  presbyteries  must  be  ;  and  Mr.  Birch  did 
not  dream  that  he  had  a  right,  on  the  ground  of  a  dismission  from  the 
former  body,  to  demand  admission  into  every  other.  The  General 
Assembly  has  distinctly  recognized  the  right  in  question.  In  answer 
to  an  overture  from  the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore,  the  Assembly  de- 
clared, "  It  is  a  privilege  of  every  presbytery  to  judge  of  the  character 
and  situation  of  those  who  apply  to  be  admitted  into  their  own  body, 
and,  unless  they  are  satisfied,  to  decline  receiving  the  same.  A  pres- 
bytery, it  is  true,  may  make  an  improper  use  of  this  privilege  ;  in 
which  case  the  rejected  applicant  may  appeal  to  the  synod  or  General 
Assembly."  IMinutes,  vol.  v.,  p.  265.  [f  ]  Even  in  the  last  Assembly,  the 
resolution,  as  introduced  by  the  chairman  (Mr.  Leach)  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  Cincinnati  memorial,  contained  an  explicit  recognition  of 
this  right,  though  he  readily  accepted  of  the  amendment  by  which  it 
was  stricken  out.  The  member  from  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry, 
in  moving  that  this  resolution  be  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries,  said, 
"  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  the  resolution.  I  have  been  aston- 
ished at  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  on  the  subject,  because  I 
always  supposed  it  was  competent  for  the  presbyteries  to  examine,  if 

[*  See  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  151,  549,  550.] 
[f  See  Dirjest  of  1873,  pp.  151,  152.] 


312  CHURCH  POLITY. 

they  thought  proper.  The  old  original  presbytery  which  I  represent 
has  always  acted  on  this  principle."  In  fact,  this  seems  to  have  been 
universally  admitted  until  very  recently,  when  it  was  called  in  ques- 
tion in  a  particular  case,  which  led  to  its  reference  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. The  right  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  their  own  members 
has  been  claimed  and  exercised  with  equal  uniformity  by  the  churclies. 
"When  members  from  other  churches  have  applied  to  be  admitted  on 
certificate,  they  have  always  felt  competent  to  refuse  to  receive  them 
if  they  saw  cause. 

4.  It  was  argued,  that  the  right  recognized  in  the  resolution  could 
not  be  safely  relinquished.  It  is  the  great  conservative  principle  of 
Presbyterianism.  Its  denial  would  subject  the  whole  Church  to  the 
domination  of  any  one  of  its  parts,  and  be  attended  with  incalculable 
evils.  A  presbytery  might  refuse  to  ordain  an  individual  on  grounds 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  them,  and  he  might  apply  to  another  presby- 
tery, and  after  having  received  ordination  return  with  clean  papers  to 
the  former  body,  and  they  be  bound  to  receive  a  man  whom  they  con- 
scientiously believed  to  be  unfit  for  the  ministry.  The  right  to  disci- 
pline such  members  gives  no  adequate  remedy  for  this  evil ;  for  a  min- 
ister can  only  be  disciplined  for  offences.  Yet  there  may  be  abundant 
and  solid  reasons,  other  than  indictable  ofiences,  for  not  receiving  a 
man  into  the  ministry.  The  denial  of  the  right  in  question  would  sub- 
ject all  the  presbyteries  and  churches  in  the  country  to  the  judgment^ 
or  even  want  of  fidelity,  of  any  one  church  or  presbytery.  Even 
where  the  ground  of  objection  to  an  applicant  is,  in  the  judgment  of  a 
church  or  presbytery,  serious  enough  to  be  the  ground  for  a  charge 
and  trial,  it  is  put  beyond  their  cognizance  by  the  act  of  receiving  him 
as  in  good  standing  with  the  knowledge  of  this  ground  of  objection. 
This  is  a  bondage  to  which  the  presbyteries  and  churches  cannot  be 
expected  to  submit.  One  church  thinks  that  slave-holding,  slave-deal- 
ing, the  use  and  manufacture  of  ardent  spirits,  are  consistent  with  a 
credible  profession  of  Christianity;  are  those  churches  which  think 
differently  to  be  bound  to  receive  members  on  certificate  from  such  a 
congregation?  There  have  been,  and  perhaps  are,  Presbyterian 
churches  in  which  members  are  admitted  to  the  communion  without 
any  examination  as  to  their  knowledge  or  religious  experience.  Are 
all  other  churches  bound  to  receive  such  members?  Would  a  southern 
presbytery  be  bound  to  receive  an  abolitionist  who  felt  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  speak  and  preach  on  the  subject  of  slavery  as  many  ministers 
speak  and  preach  in  the  north  ?  Would  it  not  be  competent  for  a 
presbytery  to  say  to  such  applicant,  you  may  be  a  very  good  and 
proper  man  for  the  north,  but  here  you  would  do  more  harm  than 
good? 


PEESBYTERY  JUDGES  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  MEMBERS.     313 

f 

5.  It  has  been  said  that  the  resolution  recognizes  the  existence  of 
two  conflicting  jurisdictions,  and  makes  a  man  subject  to  two  presbyte- 
ries at  the  same  time.  This  is  denied,  because  both  presbyteries  have 
not  the  right  to  arraign,  and  try,  and  punish  him.  He  is  subject  to 
his  own  j)resbytery  alone;  but  if  he  voluntarily  asks  admission  into 
another,  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  that  other  to  be  satisfied  that 
he  has  the  constitutional  qualifications,  and  that  his  admission  would 
be  for  the  edification  of  their  churches.  The  refusal  to  admit  deprives 
the  applicant  of  no  right,  it  subjects  him  to  no  censure,  it  derogates  in 
no  degree  from  his  ministerial  standing.  It  is  a  simple  declaration  on 
the  part  of  the  refusing  body  that  the  reception  of  the  applicant  is  in- 
expedient. It  is  true,  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  this  refusal  which 
implicate  the  character  of  the  applicant.  If  these  reasons  are  wanton- 
ly assigned  it  is  a  just  ground  of  complaint,  and  should  call  down  the 
censure  of  the  higher  courts  on  the  presbytery  or  church  which  thus 
assigns  them.  But  that  a  power  may  be  abused  is  no  evidence  against 
its  existence. 

6.  It  had  been  said,  that  the  passage  of  this  resolution  contradicting 
the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly,  must  tend  to  degrade  this  body  and 
weaken  its  authority.  This  is  a  consideration,  however,  which  should 
have  operated  on  the  last  Assembly,  as  their  vote  on  this  subject  is  in- 
consistent with  the  express  declaration  of  previous  Assemblies,  and 
with  the  practice  of  the  churches.  When  a  wrong  has  been  done,  the 
sooner  right  is  done  the  better  and  safer  for  all  parties. 

7.  It  had  been  said  that  part  of  the  Assembly  was  already  pledged 
on  this  subject.  But  can  this  interfere  with  their  right  to  consider  and 
vote  upon  the  question?  Are  not  some  pledged  against  as  well  as  oth- 
ers for  the  resolution?  Was  it  ever  known,  in  a  deliberative  body, 
that  a  man's  having  spoken  or  written  in  favour  of  any  measure,  or 
his  having  signed  a  petition  or  memorial  in  relation  to  it,  disqualified 
him  from  considering  it?  Such  a  principle  would  throw  out  the  ma- 
jority of  both  sides  of  every  such  deliberative  body  on  all  subjects  of 
general  interest. 

8.  Finally,  Whatever  may  be  the  difficulties  connected  with  this  sub- 
ject, the  question  must  be  decided.  The  Church  cannot  be  kept  toge- 
ther unless  the  rights  of  presbyteries  and  churches  in  this  matter  be  ac- 
knowledged. The  Assembly  must  go  back  to  simple  Presbyterianism, 
both  in  regard  to  doctrine  and  practice.  There  is  no  way  of  saving 
the  Church  from  disruption  but  to  revert  to  first  principles,  and  to  cast 
away  fanciful  desires  of  improvement,  all  harsh  deductions,  all  array- 
ing of  parties  against  each  other.  If  we  could  come  to  this,  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  would  soon  become  a  united  body. 

The  resolution  was  adopted.    Yeas  129 — Nays  79. 


gl4  CHURCH  POLITY. 

^4.  liength  of  Study  before  Ordiuation.  [^] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xiv.,  sec.  vi. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  399.  j 

The  Directors  of  the  Western  Theological  Seminary  requested  that 
the  General  Assembly  take  measures  to  prevent,  in  ordinary  cases,  the 
licensure  of  candidates  until  the  completion  of  the  full  course,  as  pre- 
scribed by  the  General  Assembly. 

"  The  Committee  recommend,  in  view  of  the  great  importance  of  a  thorough 
course  of  theological  study,  that  the  Presbyteries  exercise  great  care  and  pru- 
dence in  regard  to  the  licensing  of  candidates,  and  that,  in  ordinary  cases,  this  be 
postponed  until  the  completion  of  the  theological  course,  that  their  undivided 
attention  may  be  given  to  the  prosecution  of  their  studies  while  in  the  Seminary." 
The  recommendation  was  adopted. 

This  matter  rests  with  the  presbyteries,  and  we  fear  that  this  recom- 
mendation of  the  Assembly  will  not  prove  more  effectual  than  others 
of  a  similar  character.  They  are  too  much  disposed  to  yield  to  the 
amiable  desire  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  impatient  young  men  who  are 
importunate  for  licensure.  There  are  cases,  undoubtedly,  in  which 
good  reasons  exist  for  the  licensure  of  candidates  before  the  completion 
of  their  theological  studies.  But  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  is  a 
great  evil  to  the  young  men,  to  the  institutions  with  which  they  are 
connected  and  to  the  Church.  As  a  general  rule,  it  is  the  more  super- 
ficial, the  less  serious,  and  the  less  prepared  class  of  candidates  who 
are  so  desirous  to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  preachers.  As  soon  as 
such  men  obtain  licensure,  they  cease  to  be  faithful  students.  Their 
time  is  largely  devoted  to  preparing  sermons,  and  their  minds  intent 
on  seeking  settlements.  We  have  known  young  men  to  obtain  licen- 
sure and  receive  calls  before  they  had  even  commenced  the  study  of 
theology  proper.  We  hope  the  presbyteries  may  be  induced  to  pay 
some  respect  to  the  repeated  expression  of  the  judgment  of  the  Assem- 
bly on  this  subject.  With  them,  however,  rests  the  responsibility,  for 
they  have  the  constitutional  right  to  license  any  young  man,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church,  who  has  been  nominally  engaged  two  years  in  the 
study  of  theology,  although  those  years  may  have  been  almost  exclu- 
sively devoted  to  Church  history  and  Hebrew. 

g  5.    Ordination  «*Sine  Tit«lo.'»[t] 
IForm  of  Gov.,  chap,  xv.,  sec.  xv. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  146,  413-415.] 
The  committee  appointed  on  this  subject  \_Hasttj  Ordination  and  Tin' 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;^'  Princeton  Review,  1863,  p.  493.] 
[t  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  Princeton  Review,  1842,  p.  417.] 


OEDINATION  SINE  TITULO.  315 

authorized  Demission  of  the  Ministry,']  by  the  last  Assembly  made  a 
report,  wliich  gave  rise  to  a  considerable  discussion,  but  was  finally 
as  amended  unanimously  adopted. 

The  principal  points  embraced  in  the  discussion  were  the  following : 
First,  when  may  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  be  properly  ordained  siiie 
tituhf  On  the  one  hand  it  was  contended  that  such  ordinations  should 
never  be  allowed,  unless  the  candidate  intended  to  make  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  his  main  work,  and  to  go  as  an  evangelist  to  frontier  or 
destitute  places.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  said  that  this  jDrinciple 
did  not  embrace  certain  cases  in  which  presbyteries  had  the  right 
and  ought  to  exercise  the  power  to  ordain.  If  the  candidate  had,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  presbytery,  a  clear  call  of  God  to  the  ministry, 
and  a  proper  field  to  exercise  its  functions,  then  he  had  a  right  to  or- 
dination, and  it  was  the  presbytery's  duty  to  grant  it. 

Ordination  confers  the  right  and  imposes  the  duty  of  preaching  the 
gospel  and  of  administering  the  sacraments ;  but  it  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  the  discharge  of  these  duties  should  constitute  the  main 
business  of  the  minister.  There  are  many  of  our  missionaries  whose 
time  and  attention  are  mainly  devoted  to  the  superintendence  of 
schools,  or  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  Such  men  were  Carey, 
Morrison,  Martyn.  While  thus  employed,  however,  they  had  abundant 
opportunities  of  preaching  the  AVord.  Was  this  right  to  be  denied 
them,  to  satisfy  the  whim  of  adhering  to  rule?  Our  constitution  de- 
clares that  "  the  pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  the  Church,  both  for  dig- 
nity and  usefulness."  This  we  have  no  disposition  to  dispute;  but  the 
Church  may  see  fit  to  assign  some  of  her  probationers  to  the  more 
humble  office  of  teaching  her  candidates  the  a  b  c  of  the  sacred  lan- 
guages, of  superintending  their  general  or  professional  education ;  and 
while  this  is  their  main,  official  business,  they  may  have  abundant 
opportunities  to  preach  the  gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments.  Is 
there  any  reason  why  they  should  be  deprived  of  this  privilege,  or  shut 
out  of  this  field  of  usefulness?  We  know  professors  in  our  colleges 
who  preach  every  Sabbath,  who  attend  Bible  classes  among  the  stu- 
dents, who  have  religious  meetings  every  day  in  the  week,  often  for 
months  together.  We  know  on  the  other  hand,  pastors,  who,  from 
necessity  or  choice,  are  six  days  in  the  week  engaged  in  their  schools, 
upon  their  plantations,  or  in  some  other  secular  or  semi-secular  employ- 
ment, and  who  preach  on  the  Sabbath  one  or  two  discourses.  Is  there 
any  ground  for  regarding  these  latter  as  more  in  the  way  of  their  duty 
than  the  former?  Has  the  one  class  any  right  to  say  to  the  other. 
Stand  by,  I  am  holier  than  thou  ? 

We  know  no  class  of  men  worthier  of  more  respect  than  pastors 


316  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

whose  congregations  are  unable  or  unwilling  to  give  tliem  an  adequate 
support,  and  who,  therefore,  after  the  example  of  Paul,  labour  with 
their  own  hands  night  and  day,  that  they  may  be  able  to  preach  the 
gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  what  is  at 
first  undertaken  as  a  means  of  support,  is  often  prosecuted  as  a  means 
of  wealthj  and  that  the  richest  ministers  are  often  those  who  get  the 
smallest  salaries.  All  we  wish  is  that  justice  should  be  done ;  that  some 
of  the  best  and  most  devoted  men  in  the  Church,  whom  the  providence 
of  God  and  the  wishes  of  their  brethren  have  placed  in  the  position  of 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,  who  are  engaged  in  our  colleges 
in  preparing  the  children  of  the  Church  for  the  sacred  ministry,  should 
not  be  regarded  as  themselves  intruders  into  that  office,  while,  in  point 
of  fact,  their  time  and  strength  are  devoted  to  the  service  of  the 
Church. 

§  6.  Reordination.  [*] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  147,  148.]  " 

Overture  No.  19  was  also  submitted,  which  propounds  the  following 
question :  Is  it  the  duty  of  Presbyteries,  when  elders  or  deacons  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  apply  to  become  ministers  of  our 
Church,  to  recognize  their  ordination  as  sufficient,  or  to  ordain  them, 
as  in  the  case  of  other  candidates  ?  The  committee  recommended  that 
this  query  be  answered  by  reference  to  the  action  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly on  this  subject  in  1821.  This  action  is  to  this  efiect:  It  is  the 
practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  regard  the  ordination  of  all 
Protestant  Churches  as  valid.  Re-ordination  is  not,  therefore,  required ; 
but  the  same  qualifications  are  expected  as  are  demanded  of  all  other 
candidates.     Adopted. 

This  is  a  very  pithy  paragraph,  and  might  be  made  the  text  for  a 
long  discourse  on  ecclesiology.  It  involves  the  questions,  "What  is  or- 
dination ?  "Who  has  the  right  to  ordain  ?  "What  is  essential  to  the  va- 
lidity of  orders?  When  is  re-ordination  proper,  and  when  is  it  schis- 
matical  ?  To  answer  these  questions  satisfactorily  would  require  more 
time,  logic,  and  research  than  some  of  our  brethren  seem  to  think  the 
whole  department  of  Church  government  calls  for.  We  heartily  agree 
with  the  decision  above  quoted,  and  wish  the  far-reaching  principles  it 
involves  were  fully  comprehended.  We  are  persuaded  many  would 
feel  their  Presbyterianism  undergoing  a  most  healthful  expansion,  as 
these  principles  exert  their  appropriate  influence. 

*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  same  topic;  Princeton  Review, 
1852,  p.  497.] 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  319 

§7.  Adoption  of  tbe  Confession  of  Faith. 

IForm  of  Gov.,  chap,  xv.,  sec  xii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  54,  57,  411.] 
a.  In  Reply  to  Certain  Strictures.  [*] 
Circumstances  have  recently  awakened  public  attention  to  this  im- 
portant subject.  It  is  one  on  which  a  marked  diversity  of  opinion  ex- 
ists between  the  two  portions  into  which  our  Church  has  been  divided : 
and  as  in  May  last  a  direct  proposition  was  made  on  the  part  of  one 
branch  of  the  New  School  body  to  our  General  Assembly  for  a  union 
between  them  and  the  Old  School,  this  original  point  of  difference  was 
brought  into  view.  Not  only  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  was  this 
matter  referred  to,  but  it  has  since  been  the  subject  of  discussion  in 
the  public  papers,  especially  at  the  South.  A  passing  remark  made 
in  the  last  number  of  this  journal,  [f]  which  we  supposed  expressed  a 
truth  which  no  man  could  misunderstand  or  deny,  has  given  rise  to 
strictures  which  very  clearly  prove  that  great  obscm*ity,  in  many 
minds,  still  overhangs  the  subject.  We  either  differ  very  much  among 
ourselves,  or  we  have  not  yet  learned  to  express  our  meaning  in  the 
same  terms.  It  is  high  time,  therefore,  that  the  question  should  be  re- 
newedly  discussed.  We  have  nothing  new  to  say  on  the  subject.  As 
long  ago  as  October,  1831,  we  expressed  the  views  which  we  still  hold, 
and  Avhich  in  a  passing  sentence  were  indicated  in  our  number  for 
July  last.  Those  views  have  passed  unanswered  and  unheeded,  so  far 
as  we  know,  for  thirty-six  years.  How  is  it  that  the  renewed  assertion 
of  them  has  now  called  forth  almost  universal  condemnation  from  the 
Old  School  press  ?  They  have  been  censured  by  men  who  adopt  them, 
and  who  in  private  do  not  hesitate  to  admit  their  correctness.  This 
does  not  imply  any  unfairness,  or  any  other  form,  of  moral  obliquity. 
It  is  easily  accounted  for.  The  proposition,  that  the  adoption  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  does  not  imply  the  adoption  of  every  proposition  .  . 
contained  in  that  Confession,  might  mean  much  or  little.  It  might  be  1/ 
adopted  by  the  most  conservative,  and  is  all  that  the  most  radical  need 
claim.  Still  the  proposition  is  undeniably  correct.  The  fault  of  the 
writer,  as  the  Presbyterian  of  the  West  sensibly  remarked,  is  not  in 
what  is  said,  but  in  what  was  left  unsaid.  This  fault  would  have  been 
a  very  grave  one  had  the  subject  of  subscription  to  the  Confession  been 
under  discussion,  and  had  the  above  proposition  been  put  forth  as  the 
whole  rule  in  regard  to  it.  The  remark,  however,  was  merely  inci- 
dental and  illustrative.     To  show  the  impossibility  of  our  agreeing  on 

[*An  article  entitled  "Adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  Princeton  Review,  1858, 
p.  669. 1 

J_f  For  the  criticism  referred  to,  see  Church  Commentary  on  the  Bible ;  p.  380  of 
this  vol  n  me] 


31(3  CHURCH  POLITY. 

a  commentary  on  the  whole  Bible,  we  referred  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  propositions  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  which  we  are  not  agreed. 
Does  any  man  deny  this  ?  If  not,  where  is  the  harm  of  saying  it  ? 
Are  we  living  in  a  false  show  ?  Are  we  pretending  to  adopt  a  princi- 
ple of  subscription,  which  in  fact  we  neither  act  on  for  ourselves,  nor 
dream  of  enforcing  on  others  ?  Or  are  we  so  little  certain  of  our  own 
ground  that  we  are  afraid  that  our  enemies  will  take  advantage  of  us, 
and  proclaim  aloud  that  we  have  come  over  to  them  ?  If  we  really 
understand  ourselves,  and  are  satisfied  of  the  soundness  of  our  princi- 
ples, the  more  out-spoken  we  are  the  better ;  better  for  our  own  self- 
respect,  and  for  the  respect  and  confidence  of  others  towards  us.  If 
the  Christian  public,  and  especially  those  who  have  gone  out  from  us, 
hear  us  asserting  a  principle  or  rule  of  subscription  which  they  know 
we  do  not  adopt,  it  will  be  hard  for  them  to  believe  both  in  our  intel- 
ligence and  sincerity. 

The  question  put  to  every  candidate  for  ordination  in  our  Church, 
is  in  these  words :  "  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession 
of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?"  It  is  plain  that  a  very  serious  responsibility 
before  God  and  man  is  assumed  by  those  who  return  an  afllirmative 
answer  to  that  question.  It  is  something  more  than  ordinary  false- 
hood, if  our  inward  convictions  do  not  correspond  with  a  profession 
made  in  j)resence  of  the  Church,  and  as  the  condition  of  our  receiving 
authority  to  preach  the  Gospel.  In  such  a  case  we  lie  not  only  unto 
man,  but  unto  God ;  because  such  professions  are  of  the  nature  of  a 
vow,  that  is,  a  promise  or  profession  made  to  God. 

It  is  no  less  plain  that  the  candidate  has  no  right  to  put  his  own 
sense  upon  the  words  propounded  to  him.  He  has  no  right  to  select 
from  all  possible  meanings  which  the  words  may  bear,  that  particular 
sense  which  suits  his  purpose,  or  which,  he  thinks,  will  save  his  con- 
science. It  is  well  known  that  this  course  has  been  openly  advocated, 
not  only  by  the  Jesuits,  but  by  men  of  this  generation,  in  this  country 
and  in  Europe.  The  "  chemistry  of  thought,"  it  is  said,  can  make  all 
creeds  alike.  Men  have  boasted  that  they  could  sign  any  creed.  To 
a  man  in  a  balloon  the  earth  appears  a  plane,  all  inequalities  on  its 
surface  being  lost  in  the  distance.  And  here  is  a  i)hilosophic  elevation 
from  which  all  forms  of  human  belief  look  alike.  They  are  sublimed 
into  general  formulas,  which  include  them  all  and  distinguish  none. 
Professor  Newman,  just  before  his  open  apostasy,  published  a  tract  in 
which  he  defended  his  right  to  be  in  the  English  Church  while  hold- 
ing the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  claimed  for  himself  and 
others  the  privilege  of  signing  the  Thirty-nine  articles  in  a  "  non-natu- 
ral sense  ;"  that  is,  in  the  sense  which  he  chose  to  put  upon  the  words. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  319 

This  shocks  the  common  sense  and  the  common  honesty  of  men.  There 
is  no  need  to  argue  the  matter.  The  turpitude  of  such  a  principle  is 
much  more  clearly  seen  intuitively  than  discursively.  The  two  princi- 
ples which,  by  the  common  consent  of  all  honest  men,  determine  the 
interpretation  of  oaths  and  professions  of  faith,  are,  first,  the  plain, 
historical  meaning  of  the  words  ;  and  secondly,  the  animus  imponentis, 
that  is,  the  intention  of  the  party  imposing  the  oath  or  requiring  the 
profession.  The  words,  therefore,  "  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,"  are  to  be  taken  in  their  plain,  historical  sense.  A 
man  is  not  at  liberty  to  understand  the  words  "  Holy  Scriptures,"  to 
mean  all  books  written  by  holy  men,  because  although  that  interpreta- 
tion might  consist  with  the  signification  of  the  words,  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  historical  meaning  of  the  phrase.  Nor  can  he  understand 
them,  as  they  would  be  understood  by  Romanists,  as  including  the 
Apocrypha,  because  the  words  being  used  by  a  Protestant  Church, 
must  be  taken  in  a  Protestant  sense.  Neither  can  the  candidate  say, 
that  he  means  by  "  system  of  doctrine  "  Christianity  as  opposed  to 
Mohammedanism,  or  Protestantism,  as  opposed  to  Romanism,  or  evan- 
gelical Christianity,  as  distinguished  from  the  theology  of  the  Reformed 
(i.  e.  Calvinistic)  Churches,  because  the  words  being  used  by  a  Re- 
formed Church,  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  which  that  Church  is 
known  to  attach  to  them.  If  a  man  professes  to  receive  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  the  word  must  be  taken  in  its  Christian  sense,  the  can- 
didate cannot  substitute  for  that  sense  the  Sabellian  idea  of  a  modal 
Trinity,  nor  the  philosophical  trichotomy  of  Pantheism.  And  so  of 
all  other  expressions  which  have  a  fixed  historical  meaning.  Again, 
by  the  animus  imponentis  in  the  case  contemplated,  is  to  be  under- 
stood not  the  mind  or  intention  of  the  ordaining  bishop  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  or  of  the  ordaining  presbytery  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  is  the  mind  or  intention  of  the  Church,  of  which  the 
bishop  or  the  presbytery  is  the  organ  or  agent.  Should  a  Romanizing 
bishop  in  the  Church  of  England  give  "  a  non-natural "  sense  to  the 
Thirty-nine  articles,  that  would  not  acquit  the  priest,  who  should  sign 
them  in  that  sense,  of  the  crime  of  moral  perjury ;  or  should  a  f)resby- 
tery  give  an  entirely  erroneous  interpretation  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, that  would  not  justify  a  candidate  for  ordination  in  adopting 
it  in  that  sense.  The  Confession  must  be  adopted  in  the  sense  of  the 
Church,  into  the  service  of  which  the  minister,  in  virtue  of  that  adop- 
tion, is  received.  These  are  simple  principles  of  honesty,  and  we  pre- 
sume they  are  universally  admitted,  at  least  so  far  as  our  Church  is 
concerned. 

The  question  however  is,  What  is  the  true  sense  of  the  phrase,  "  sys- 
tem of  doctrine,"  in  our  ordination  service?  or,  What  does  the  Church 


320  CHUECH  POLITY. 

understand  the  candidate  to  profess,  when  he  says  that  he  "receives 
and  adopts  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures "  ?  There  are  three 
different  answers  given  to  that  question.  First,  it  is  said  by  some,  that 
in  adopting  the  "  system  of  doctrine,"  the  candidate  is  understood  to 
adopt  it,  not  in  the  form  or  manner  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the 
Confession,  but  only  for  "substance  of  doctrine."  The  obvious  objec- 
tions to  this  view  of  the  subject  are: 

1.  That  such  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  words  employed.  The  two 
expressions  or  declarations,  "  I  adopt  the  system  of  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  and,  "  I  adopt  that  system  for  substance 
of  doctrine,"  are  not  identical.  The  cue  therefore  cannot  be  substitu- 
ted for  the  other.  If  there  were  no  other  difference  between  them,  it 
is  enough  that  the  one  is  definite  and  univocal,  the  other  is  both  vague 
and  equivocal.  The  latter  expression  may  have  two  very  different 
meanings.  By  substance  of  doctrine  may  be  meant  the  substantial 
doctrines  of  the  Confession;  that  is,  those  doctrines  which  give  charac- 
ter to  it  as  a  distinctive  confession  of  faith,  and  which  therefore  consti- 
tute the  system  of  belief  therein  contained.  Or  it  may  mean  the  sub- 
stance of  the  several  doctrines  taught  in  the  Confession,  as  distinguished 
from  the  form  in  which  they  are  therein  presented.  It  will  be  at  once 
perceived  that  these  are  very  different  things.  The  substance  or  essence 
of  a  system  of  doctrines  is  the  system  itself.  In  this  case,  the  essence 
of  a  thing  is  the  whole  thing.  The  essential  doctrines  of  Pelagianism 
are  Pelagianism,  and  the  essential  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are  Calvin- 
ism. But  the  substance  of  a  doctrine  is  not  the  doctrine,  any  more 
than  the  substance  of  a  man  is  the  man.  A  man  is  a  given  substance 
in  a  specific  form ;  and  a  doctrine  is  a  given  truth  in  a  particular  form. 
The  substantial  truth,  included  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  is  that 
human  nature  is  deteriorated  by  the  apostasy  of  Adam.  The  different 
forms  in  which  this  general  truth  is  presented,  make  all  the  difierence, 
as  to  this  point,  between  Pelagianism,  Angus tinianism,  Romanism,  and 
Armiuianism.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  in  matters  of  doctrine,  to 
separate  the  ■  substance  from  the  form.  The  form  is  essential  to  the 
doctrine,  as  much  as  the  form  of  a  statue  is  essential  to  the  statue.  In 
adopting  a  system  of  doctrines,  therefore,  the  candidate  adopts  a  series 
of  doctrines  in  the  specific  form  in  which  they  are  presented  in  that 
system.  To  say  that  he  adopts  the  substance  of  those  doctrines,  leaves 
it  entirely  uncertain  what  he  adopts.  The  first  objection  then  to  this 
view  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  system  of  doctrine,"  is,  that  it  is 
contrary  to  the  simple  historical  sense  of  the  terms.  What  a  man  pro- 
fesses to  adopt  is,  "  the  system  of  doctrine,"  not  the  substance  of  the 
doctrines  embraced  in  that  system. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  321 

2.  Another  objection  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  mind  of  the  Church. 
The  Church,  in  demanding  the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as 
containing  tlie  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrij)tures,  de- 
mands something  more  than  the  adoption  of  what  the  candidate  may 
choose  to  consider  the  substance  of  those  doctrines.  Tliis  is  plain  from 
the  words  used,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  in  their  plain  import,  mean 
something  more,  and  something  more  specific  and  intelligible  than  the 
phrase,  "substance  of  doctrine."  The  mind  of  the  Church  on  this 
point  is  rendered  clear  beyond  dispute  by  her  repeated  oflicial  declara- 
tions on  the  subject.  The  famous  adopting  act  of  the  original  Synod, 
passed  in  1729,  is  in  these  words :  "Although  the  Synod  do  not  claim 
or  pretend  to  any  authority  of  imposing  our  faith  on  other  men's  con- 
sciences, but  do  profess  our  just  dissatisfaction  with,  and  abhorrence 
of  such  impositions,  and  do  utterly  disclaim  all  legislative  power  and 
authority  in  the  Church,  being  willing  to  receive  one  another  as  Christ 
has  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred 
ordinances,  all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last 
admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to 
take  care  that  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  be  kept  pure  and 
uncorrupt  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to  our  posterity ;  and  do 
therefore  agree  that  all  ministers  of  this  Synod,  or  that  shall  hereafter 
be  admitted  into  this  Synod,  shall  declare  their  agreement  in,  and  ap- 
probation of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  being,  in 
all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  of  sound  words  and 
systems  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  do  also  adopt  the  said  Confession 
and  Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  our  faith.  And  we  do  also  agree, 
that  all  Presbyteries  within  our  bounds  shall  always  take  care  not  to 
admit  any  candidate  of  the  ministry  into  the  exercise  of  the  sacred 
functions,  but  what  declares  his  agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the 
essential  and  necessary  articles  of  said  Confession,  either  by  subscrib- 
ing the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms,  or  by  a  verbal  declaration  of 
their  assent  thereto,  as  such  minister  or  candidate  shall  think  best. 
And  in  case  any  minister  of  this  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  min- 
istry, shall  have  any  scruple  with  respect  to  any  article  or  articles  of 
said  Confession  or  Catechisms,  he  shall  at  the  time  of  making  said  de- 
claration, declare  his  sentiments  to  the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  who  shall, 
notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our 
bounds,  and  to  ministerial  communion,  if  the  Synod  or  Presbytery 
shall  judge  his  scruple  or  mistake  to  be  only  about  articles  not  essen- 
tial and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government.  But  if  the 
Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  such  ministers  or  candidates  errone- 
ous in  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  faith,  the  Synod  or  Presby- 
21 


322  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tery  shall  declare  them  incapable  of  communion  with  them.  And  the 
Synod  do  solemnly  agree  that  none  of  them  will  traduce  or  use  any 
opprobrious  terms  of  those  who  differ  from  us  in  extra-essential  and  not 
necessary  points  of  doctrine,  but  treat  them  with  the  same  friendship, 
kindness,  and  brotherly  love,  as  if  they  did  not  differ  in  such  senti- 
ment." 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  day  on  which  the  above  act  was  adopted,  the 
following  minute  was  recorded,  viz.  "  All  the  ministers  of  this  Synod 
now  present,  except  one,*  that  declared  himself  not  prepared,  namely, 
Masters  Jedediah  Andrews,  Thomas  Craighead,  John  Thompson,  James 
Anderson,  John  Pierson,  Samuel  Gelston,  Joseph  Houston,  Gilbert 
Tenant,  Adam  Boyd,  John  Bradner,  Alexander  Hutchinson,  Thomas 
Evans,  Hugh  Stevenson,  William  Tenant,  Hugh  Conn,  George  Gilles- 
pie, and  John  Wilson,  after  proposing  all  the  scruples  that  any  of  them 
had  to  make  against  any  articles  and  expressions  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
at  Westminster,  have  unanimously  agreed  in  the  solution  of  those  scru- 
ples, and  in  declaring  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  to  be  the 
confession  of  their  faith,  excepting  only  some  clauses  in  the  twentieth 
and  twenty-third  chapters,  concerning  which  clauses  the  Synod  do 
unanimously  declare,  that  they  do  not  receive  those  articles  in  such 
sense,  as  to  suppose  that  the  civil  magistrate  hath  a  controlling  power 
over  Synods,  with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  their  ministerial  authority, 
or  power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion,  or  in  any  sense  contrary  to 
the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of  Great  Britain. 

"  The  Synod  observing  that  unanimity,  peace,  and  unity,  which  ap- 
peared in  all  their  consultations  relating  to  the  affair  of  the  Confession, 
did  unanimously  agree  in  giving  thanks  to  God  in  solemn  prayer  and 
praises." 

This  fundamental  act,  passed  in  1729,  has  never  been  either  repealed 
or  altered.  It  has  on  several  occasions  been  interpreted  and  reaffirmed, 
but  it  has  never  been  abrogated,  except  so  far  as  it  was  merged  in  the 
readoption  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  at  the  formation  of  our 
present  Constitution,  in  the  year  1788.  This  important  document 
teaches,  first :  That  in  our  Church  the  terms  of  Christian  communion 
are  competent  knowledge,  and  a  creditable  profession  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance. The  Synod,  say  they,  "admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  ordi- 
nances, all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last  admit 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Second :  That  the  condition  of  ministerial 
communion  is  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 

*  The  Kev.  Mr.  Elmer,  who  gave  in  Lis  adhesion  at  the  following  meeting  of 
the  Synod. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  323 

Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms.  This  is  expressed 
by  saying,  "  We  adopt  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  as  the  con- 
fession of  our  faith."  For  this  is  substituted  as  an  equivalent  form  of 
expression,  "  agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  of  said  Confession."  That  is,  "  all  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  "  of  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confession.  Third : 
That  the  only  exceptions  allowed  to  be  taken  were  such  as  related  to 
matters  outside  that  system  of  doctrine,  and  the  rejection  of  which  left 
the  system  in  its  integrity.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  and  intent 
of  the  act  is  plain,  first,  because  the  Synod  in  1730  expressly  declared, 
"  that  they  understand  those  clauses  that  respect  tlie  admission  of  en- 
trants or  candidates,  in  such  sense  as  to  oblige  them  to  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  at  their  admission,  in  the  same 
manner,  and  as  fully  as  the  members  of  the  Synod  did,  that  were  then 
present.  Those  members  adopted  the  whole  system  in  its  integrity,  ex- 
cepting only  to  certain  clauses  relating  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate in  matters  of  religion.  Again,  in  1736,  they  say,  "  The  Synod 
have  adopted,  and  still  do  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  Cate- 
chisms, and  Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration  .... 
and  they  further  declare,  that  this  was  our  meaning  and  true  intent  in 
our  first  adopting  of  said  Confession."  In  the  same  minute  they  say, 
"  We  hope  and  desire  that  this  our  Synodical  declaration  and  explica- 
tion may  satisfy  all  our  people,  as  to  our  firm  attachment  to  our  good 
old  received  doctrines  contained  in  said  Confession,  without  the  least 
variation  or  alteration."  This  minute  was  adopted  nemine  contradi- 
cente.*  Second :  Not  only  this  ofiicial  and  authoritative  exposition  of 
the  "  adopting  act,"  given  by  its  authors,  but  the  subsequent  declara- 
tions of  the  several  presbyteries  composing  the  Synod,  and  of  the  Synod 
itself,  prove  that  "  the  system  of  doctrines "  was  adopted,  and  not 
merely  the  substance  of  those  doctrines.  The  common  form  of  adop- 
tion may  be  learned  from  such  records  as  the  following,  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  Mr.  Samuel  Blair  was  licensed  after" 
"  having  given  his  assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Catechisms,  as  the  confession  of  his  faith."  David  Cowell  was  ordained 
"after  he  had  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms as  the  confession  of  his  faith."  In  1741,  the  great  schism  oc- 
curred by  the  exclusion  of  the  Kew  Brunswick  Presbytery,  which  being 
subsequently  joined  by  the  Presbyteries  of  New  York  and  New  Castle, 
constituted  the  Synod  of  New  York.  This  body,  composed  of  the 
friends  of  the  Whitefieldian  revival,  say :  "  We  do  declare  and  testify 

*  These  documents  may  be  seen  in   full  in  Baird's  Collection,  and  in  Hodge*! 
Constitutional  History,  vol.  i.,  chap.  3. 


324  CHUECH  POLITY. 

our  constitution,  order,  and  discipline,  to  be  in  harmony  -with  the 
established  Church  of  Scotland.  The  Westminster  Confession,  Cate- 
chisms, and  Directory,  adopted  by  them,  are  in  like  manner  adopted  by 
us."  The  first  article  of  the  terms  of  union,  by  which  the  two  Synods 
were  united,  in  1758,  and  which  was  unanimously  adopted,  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Both  Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  as  an 
orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  doctrine,  founded  on  the  word  of 
God ;  we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our  faith,  and 
also  adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and  discipline,  con- 
tained in  the  Westminster  Directory ;  strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our 
ministers  and  probationers  for  the  ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach 
according  to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  the  said  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms, and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto."  When  the 
General  Assembly  was  constituted,  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms  were  declared  to  be  parts  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church, 
and  every  candidate  for  the  ministry  was  required,  previous  to  his  ordi- 
nation, to  receive  that  Confession,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  From  the  beginning,  therefore,  the 
mind  of  our  Church  has  been  that  that  "  system  of  doctrine  "  in  its  in- 
tegrity, not  the  substance  of  those  doctrines,  was  the  term  of  ministerial 
communion.  For' a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject  we  would  refer  our 
readers  to  Hodges  Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  vol. 
i.,  chap.  3,  It  is  there  shown  that  no  exception  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  touching  any  of  the  doctrines  constituting  that  system,  was  ever 
allowed. 

3.  Not  only  are  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words,  and  the  animus  im- 
ponentis  oj^posed  to  the  interpretation  of  the  ordination  service  now 
under  consideration,  but  that  interpretation  is  liable  to  the  further 
objection,  that  the  phrase  "substance  of  doctrine"  has  no  definite  as- 
signable meaning.  What  the  substance  of  any  given  doctrine  is  can- 
not be  historically  ascertained  or  authenticated.  No  one  knows  what 
a  man  professes,  who  professes  to  receive  only  the  substance  of  a  doc- 
trine, and,  therefore,  this  mode  of  subscription  vitiates  the  whole  intent 
and  value  of  a  confession.  Who  can  tell  what  is  the  substance  of  the 
doctrine  of  sin  ?  Does  the  substance  include  all  the  forms  under  which 
the  doctrine  has  been,  or  can  be  held,  so  that  whoever  holds  any  one 
of  those  forms,  holds  the  substance  of  the  doctrine?  If  one  man  says 
that  nothing  is  sin  but  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law; 
another,  that  men  are  responsible  only  for  their  purposes  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  their  feelings ;  another,  that  an  act  to  be  voluntary,  and  there- 
fore sinful,  must  be  deliberate  and  not  impulsive;  another,  that  sin  is 
merely  limitation  or  imperfect  development;   another,  that  sin  exists 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  325 

only  for  us  and  in  our  consciousness,  and  not  in  the  sight  of  God ; 
another,  that  sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  in  state,  feeling,  or  act,  to 
the  law  of  God;  do  all  these  hold  the  substance  of  the  doctrine?  What 
is  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  redemption '?  The  generic  idea  of 
redemption,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  word,  may  be  said  to  be  the 
deliverance  of  men  from  sin  and  its  consequences  by  Jesus  Christ. 
Does  every  man  who  admits  that  idea  hold  the  substance  of  the  doc- 
trine as  presented  in  our  Confession?  If  so,  then  it  matters  not  whether 
we  believe  that  that  deliverance  is  effected  by  the  example  of  Christ, 
or  by  his  doctrine,  or  by  his  power,  or  by  the  moral  impression  of  his 
death  on  the  race  or  the  universe,  or  by  his  satisfying  the  justice  of 
God,  or  by  his  incarnation  exalting  our  nature  to  a  higher  power. 
The  same  remark  may  be  made  in  reference  to  all  the  other  distinctive 
doctrines  of  the  Confession.  The  general  idea  of  "grace"  is  that  of  a 
remedial  divine  influence ;  but  is  that  influence  exercised  only  by  or- 
dering our  external  circumstances?  or  is  it  simply  the  moral  influence 
of  the  truth  which  God  has  revealed?  or  that  influence  exalted  by  some 
special  operation?  is  it prceveniens  as  well  as  assisting?  is  it  common 
without  being  sufficient,  or  sufficient  as  well  as  common  ?  is  it  irresisti- 
ble, or  efficacious  only  through  its  congruity  or  the  cooperation  of  the 
sinner.  Does  the  man  who  holds  any  one  of  these  forms,  hold  the 
substance  of  the  doctrine  of  grace  ?  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  there 
is  no  authoritative  standard  by  which  to  determine  what  the  substance 
of  a  doctrine  is ;  that  the  very  idea  of  a  doctrine  is  a  truth  in  a  specific 
form,  and,  therefore,  those  who  do  not  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession in  the  form  in  which  they  are  therein  presented,  do  not  hold  the 
doctrines.  It  is  equally  obvious,  that  no  definite,  intelligible,  tru-st- 
worthy  profession  of  faith  is  made  by  the  man  who  simply  professes  to 
iiold  the  substance  of  certain  doctrines.  Such  a  mode  of  adoj)tiug  the 
Confession  of  Faith  is  morally  wrong,  because  inconsistent  with  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  words,  and  with  the  mind  of  the  Church,  and  be- 
cause it  renders  the  adoption  nugatory. 

4.  This  system  has  been  tried,  and  found  to  produce  the  greatest  dis- 
order and  contention.  Men  acting  on  the  principle  of  receiving  the 
Confession  for  substance  of  doctrine,  have  entered  the  ministry  in  our 
Church,  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  whether  of  Adam's  sin 
or  of  Christ's  righteousness ;  the  doctrine  of  the  derivation  of  a  sinful 
depravity  of  nature  from  our  first  parents  ;  of  inability  ;  of  efiicacious 
grace ;  of  a  definite  atonement ;  that  is,  of  an  atonement  having  any 
such  special  reference  to  the  elect,  as  to  render  their  salvation  certain. 
In  short,  while  professing  to  receive  "  the  system  of  doctrine  "  contained 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  they  have  rejected  al- 
most every  doctrine  which  gives  that  system  its  distinctive  character. 


326  CHURCH  POLITY. 

It  was  this  principle  more  than  any  other  cause,  and  probably  more 
than  all  other  causes  combined,  that  led  to  the  division  of  our  Church 
in  1838,  and  it  must  produce  like  disasters  should  it  again  be  brought 
into  practical  application  among  us. 

The  second  intei'pretation  given  to  the  question,  "Do  you  receive 
and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church  as  containing'  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures?"  is,  that  the  person 
who  answers  that  question  in  the  affirmative  does  thereby  profess  to  re- 
ceive and  adopt  every  proj^osition  contained  in  that  Confession  as  a 
part  of  his  own  faith.  The  objections  to  this  view  are  substantially  the 
same  as  those  urged  against  the  view  already  considered. 

1.  It  is  contrary  to  the  plain,  historical  meaning  of  the  words.  To 
adopt  a  book  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  to  adopt  every  proposition  contained  in  that  book,  are 
two  very  different  things.  The  book,  although  a  confession  of  faith, 
may  contain  many  propositions  by  way  of  argument  or  inference,  or 
which  lie  entirely  outside  the  system,  and  which  may  be  omitted,  and 
yet  leave  the  system  in  its  integrity.  The  words  "  system  of  doctrine," 
have  a  definite  meaning,  and  serve  to  define  and  limit  the  extent  to 
which  the  Confession  is  adopted. 

No  man  has  the  right  to  put  upon  them  his  own  sense.  He  must  take 
them  in  their  historical  sense,  i.  e.  in  the  sense  which  by  historical  proof 
it  may  be  shown  they  were  intended  to  bear,  just  as  the  phrase  "  Holy 
Scriptures  "  must  be  taken  in  its  historical  sense.  By  the  words  "  sys- 
tem of  doctrine,"  as  used  in  our  ordination  service,  as  remarked  on  a 
preceding  page,  are  not  to  be  understood  the  general  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  nor  the  whole  system  of  a  man's  convictions  on  politics, 
economics,  morals,  and  religion,  but  the  theological  system  therein  con- 
tained. That  is  the  established  meaning  of  the  phrase.  The  West- 
minster divines  did  not  intend  to  frame  a  new  system  of  doctrines,  nor 
have  they  done  it.  They  have  simply  reproduced  and  presented,  with 
matchless  perspicuity  and  precision,  the  system  of  doctrines  common 
to  the  Reformed  Churches.  That  is  the  system  which  the  candidate 
professes  to  adopt,  and  no  one  can  rightfully  demand  of  him  either 
more  or  less.  It  is  one  thing  to  adopt  the  system  of  doctrine  and  or- 
der of  worship  contained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  quite 
another  thing  to  "  assent  and  consent  "  to  everything  contained  in  that 
book,  as  the  clergy  of  England  are  required  to  do.  So  it  is  one  thing 
to  adopt  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, and  quite  another  thing  to  adopt  every  proposition  contained  iu 
that  Confession.  Many  a  man  could  do  the  one,  who  could  not  do  the 
other. 

2.  A  second  objection  to  this  interpretation  of  the  adoption  of  the 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  327 

Confession  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  animus  imponentis,  or  mind  of 
the  Church.  The  mind  of  the  Church  on  this  subject  is  indicated  and 
established,  first,  by  the  words  employed ;  secondly,  by  the  official  ex- 
planations of  the  sense  in  which  these  words  are  to  be  taken ;  thirdly, 
by  the  contemporaneous  testimony  of  the  men  who  framed  the  consti- 
tution, or  acted  under  it ;  and,  fourthly,  by  the  uniform  action  of  the 
Church.  First,  as  to  the  words  employed.  If  the  Church  intended 
that  the  candidate  should  adopt  every  proposition  contained  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  why  did  she  not  say  so?  It  was  very  easy  to  ex- 
press that  idea.  The  words  actually  used  do  not,  in  their  plain,  estab- 
lished meaning,  express  it.  The  simple  fact  that  no  such  demand  is 
made,  is  evidence  enough  that  none  such  was  intended.  The  Church 
makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the  terms  of  Christian  communion, 
of  ministerial  communion,  and  the  condition  on  which  any  one  is  to  be 
admitted  to  the  ofiice  of  professor  in  any  of  her  theological  seminaries. 
For  Christian  communion,  she  requires  competent  knowledge,  and  a 
credible  profession  of  faith  and  repentance ;  for  ministerial  communion, 
the  adoption  of  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster 
Confession;  for  admission  to  the  ofiice  of  a  professor,  she  exacts  the 
promise,  "not  to  teach  anything  which  directly  or  indirectly  contra- 
dicts anything  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms,  or  Form 
of  Government  in  this  Church."  Does  all  this  mean  nothing?  Do 
these  diflTerently  worded  demands  all  amount  to  the  same  thing? 
This  is  impossible.  The  words  have  not  only  a  different  meaning,  but 
there  is  an  obvious  reason  for  the  different  demand  in  these  several 
cases.  More  is  in  Scripture  required  for  admission  to  the  office  of  a 
minister,  than  is  required  for  admission  to  Church  privileges;  and 
more  may  reasonably  be  demanded  of  a  professor  than  of  a  minister. 
Whatever  a  professor's  private  convictions  may  be  as  to  anything  not 
included  in  the  system  of  doctrines,  he  is  bound  to  avoid  going  counter 
to  the  standards  of  the  Church  whose  servant  he  is.  He  may  think 
that  ministers  and  ruling  elders  do  not  differ  in  office,  but  he  cannot 
properly  officially  inculcate  that  idea.  The  mind  of  the  Church, 
therefore,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  ordination  service,  is  already  indi- 
cated by  the  words  employed. 

Secondly,  This  is  placed,  as  it  seems  to  us,  beyond  dispute,  by  the  of- 
ficial explanation  given  of  the  words  in  question.  The  original  Synod 
of  Philadelphia  officially  declared  that  there  were  certain  clauses  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  relating  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate in  matters  of  religion,  which  they  did  not  adopt.  This  was  no 
less  true  of  the  two  Synods  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York  after  the 
schism,  and  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  after  the 
union.     Yet  all  these  bodies  uniformly  declared  for  themselves,  and 


328  CHURCH  POLITY. 

required  all  candidates  to  declare,  tliat  they  received  that  "  Confession 
as  the  confession  of  their  faith,"  or  that  they  "  received  and  adhered  to 
the  system  of  doctrines  "  therein  contained.  Every  minister  received, 
and  every  candidate  ordained,  was  required  to  make  that  declaration. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  therefore,  that  the  Church  understood  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Westminster  Confession  as  not  involving  the  adoption  of 
every  proposition  contained  in  that  book.  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
the  formula  of  adoption  was  not,  "  Do  you  receive  the  Westminster 
Confession,  Avith  the  exception  of  certain  clauses  in  the  twentieth  and 
twenty-third  chapters,  as  the  confession  of  your  faith  ?  "  but  simply, 
"  Do  you  receive  that  Confession,"  or,  "  the  system  of  doctrine  in  that 
Confession  ?  "  It  was  not  considered  necessary  to  make  that  exception, 
because  the  language  was  not  intended  to  extend  to  every  proposition, 
but  only  to  "  the  system  of  doctrine."  This  is  the  Church's  own  offi- 
cial explanation  of  the  sense  of  the  words  in  question. 

Thirdly,  The  mind  of  the  Church  as  to  this  point  is  determined  by 
contemporaneous  testimony.  There  were  three  forms  of  opinion  on 
the  subject  of  confessions  in  our  original  Synod.  First ;  There  was  a 
very  small  class  represented  by  President  Dickinson,  who  were  opposed 
to  all  creeds  of  human  composition.  They  entered  a  protest,  signed 
by  four  ministers,*  against  the  overture  for  the  adoption  of  a  confes- 
sion as  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  On  this  subject  President  Dickinson  said : 
"The  joint  acknowledgment  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  our  common 
head,  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  our  common  standard  both  of  faith 
and  practice,  with  a  joint  agreement  in  the  same  essential  and  neces- 
sary articles  of  Christianity,  and  the  same  methods  of  worship  and 
discipline,  are  a  sufficient  bond  of  union  for  the  being  and  well-being 
of  any  Church  under  heaven."f  This  small  class,  therefore,  made  no 
distinction  between  Christian  and  ministerial  communion,  requiring  for 
the  latter,  as  well  as  for  the  former,  simply  agreement  in  the  "  necessary 
and  essential  articles  of  Christianity."  Another  class,  represented  by 
Mr.  Creaghead,  who  afterward  left  our  Church  mainly  on  account  of 
the  imperfect  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith/];  desired  unquali- 
fied adherence  to  the  Confession,  and  to  all  that  it  contained.  The 
third  class,  including  the  great  body  of  the  Synpd,  insisted  on  the 
adoption  of  "the  system  of  doctrine"  contained  in  the  Confession,  ad- 
mitting that  there  were  proj^ositions  in  the  book  not  essential  to  the 
system,  or  even  connected  with  it,  which  they  did  not  receive.     With 

*  Those  ministers  were  Malachi  Jones,  Joseph  ]\Iorgan,  Jonathan  Dickinson, 
and  David  Evans.  Of  these,  Messrs.  Jones  and  Evans  were  Welsh,  and  Mr.  Mor- 
gan probably  either  Welsh  or  English. 

t  See  Constitutional  History,  page  170.  J  Ibid,  page  197. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  399 

this  class  the  whole  body  of  ministers  subsequently  concurred,  and 
established  this  as  the  permanent  condition  of  ministerial  communion. 
Mr.  Thompson,  the  leader  of  the  Synod,  and  author  of  the  overture 
for  the  adoption  of  the  Confession,  says,  that  the  object  of  the  measure 
was  to  protect  our  infant  Church  from  the  inroads  of  error ;  "  of  Ar- 
miniahism,  Socinianism,  Deism,  and  Free-thinking,"  especially,  he  says, 
from  Ireland,  whence  the  larger  supply  of  ministers  was  expected.  Al- 
though the  Synod  unanimously  declared  that  they  adopted  everything 
in  the  Confession,  except  certain  clauses  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty- 
third  chapters,  yet  as  there  was  this  exception,  they  were  forced  to  limit 
the  adoption  to  the  "  necessary  and  essential  articles,"  or,  as  it  is  else- 
where expressed,  to  "  the  system  of  doctrine."  As,  however,  the  words 
of  the  preamble  to  the  adopting  act,  declaring  that  the  Synod  received 
the  Confession  "  in  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,"  were  inter- 
preted by  some  to  mean  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  these  words 
became  a  bone  of  contention,  and  called  for  frequent  explanations. 
Mr.  Creaghead  made  them  the  ground  of  his  secession,  saying  that  the 
Synod  had  never  adopted  the  Confession  in  all  its  articles  or  chapters. 
To  him  Mr.  Samuel  Blair  replied,  that  the  Synod  did  expressly  adopt 
the  Confession  in  all  its  articles  or  chapters,  excepting  only  to  certain 
clauses.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Harker,  having  been  sus- 
pended from  the  ministry  for  certain  Arminian  doctrines,  complained 
that  his  suspension  was  a  violation  of  the  adopting  act,  which  re- 
quired only  agreement  in  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity.  In 
his  published  reply  to  this  complaint,  Mr.  John  Blair  says,  that  Mr. 
Harker  takes  the  words  cited  "  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  plain  the  Synod 
never  intended  they  should  be  taken."  "  The  Synod,"  he  adds,  "  say 
essential  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government,  i.  e.  essential  to  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
considered  as  a  system,  and  to  the  mode  of  worship,  and  to  the  plan  of 
government  contained  in  our  Directory.  Now  what  unprejudiced  man 
of  .sense  is  there,  who  will  not  readily  acknowledge  that  a  point  may 
be  essential  to  a  system  of  doctrine  as  such,  to  our  mode  of  worship, 
and  to  Presbyterial  government,  which  is  not  essential  to  a  state  of 
grace  ?"  "  That,  therefore,  is  an  essential  error  in  the  Synod's  sense, 
which  is  of  such  malignity  as  to  subvert  or  greatly  injure  the  system 
of  the  doctrine,  and  mode  of  worship  and  government,  contained  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory."*  Such  is  the 
explanation  of  the  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  given  by  the 
original  framers  of  the  act,  and  by  their  contemporaries.     They  did 

*  See  ''  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  vindicated.     In  reply  to  Mr. 
Samuel  Harker's  Appeal  to  the  Christian  World.    By  a  member  of  the  Synod." 


330  CHURCH  POLITY. 

not  merely  receive  it  for  "  substance  of  doctrine,"  nor  did  they  adopt 
all  the  propositions  which  it  contains,  but  they  received  the  system  of 
doctrine"  therein  taught  in  its  integrity. 

Fourthly,  The  mind  of  the  Church  on  this  subject  is  clearly  evinced 
by  the  uniform  action  of  our  Church  courts,  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest.  So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn  from  the  records,  no  man 
has  ever  been  refused  admission  to  the  ministry  in  our  Church,  who 
honestly  received  "  the  system  of  doctrine  "  contained  in  the  West- 
minster Confession,  simply  because  there  are  propositions  in  the  book 
to  which  he  could  not  assent.  And  no  Presbyterian  minister  has  ever 
been  suspended  or  deposed  on  any  such  ground.  It  is  a  perfectly  no- 
torious fact,  that  there  are  hundreds  of  ministers  in  our  Church,  and 
that  there  always  have  been  such  ministers,  who  do  not  receive  all  the 
propositions  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms.  To 
start  now,  at  this  late  day,  a  new  rule  of  subscription,  which  would 
either  brand  these  men  with  infamy,  or  exclude  them  from  the  Church, 
is  simply  absurd  and  intolerable 

This  introduces  our  third  objection.  The  principle  that  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith  implies  the  adoption  of  all  the  proposi- 
tions therein  contained,  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  plain,  historical 
meaning  of  the  Avords  which  the  candidate  is  required  to  use,  and  to 
the  mind  of  the  Church  in  imposing  a  profession  of  faith,  but  the  prin- 
ciple is  impracticable.  It  cannot  be  carried  out  without  working  the 
certain  and  immediate  ruin  of  the  Church.  Our  Confession  is  a  large 
book ;  beside  the  system  of  doctrine  common  to  all  the  Reformed 
Churches,  it  contains  deliverances  on  many  other  topics  relating  to  the 
Church,  the  state,  and  to  our  social  relations.  No  doubt  the  original 
framers  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  or  the  majority  of  them,  thought 
these  deliverances  both  important  and  scriptural.  No  doubt  also  the 
majority  of  our  own  Church  have  concurred  in  so  regarding  them.  But 
this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  making  the  adoption  of  these  judg- 
ments, all  and  several,  a  condition  of  ministerial  communion.  One 
man  may  dissent  from  one  of  them,  and  another  from  another,  while 
some  may  adopt  them  all ;  and  to  many  of  them  they  may  attach  very 
great  importance,  without  recognizing  them  as  terms  of  communion. 
Thus  our  standards  distinctly  teach,  that  the  Church  is  bound  to  admit 
all  true  Christians  "  to  fellowship  in  sacred  ordinances."  Yet  there 
have  always  been,  and  there  still  are,  some  among  us  who  deny  this. 
They  press  so  far  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  a  witnessing  body,  that 
they  will  not  commune  with  any  Christians  whose  creed  they  cannot 
adopt ;  neither  will  they  receive  to  the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  any  who  do  not  adopt  its  doctrinal  standards.  This  rejecting 
from  our  communion  those  whom  Christ  receives  into  fellowship  with 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  33I 

himself,  is  revolting  to  the  great  body  of  our  ministers  and  members. 
Yet  who  would  think  of  making  departure  from  our  standards  on  this 
point,  the  ground  either  of  reproach  or  of  judicial  process.  Again, 
our  book  recognizes  the  right  of  a  woman  to  divorce  her  husband,  as 
well  as  that  of  a  man  to  divorce  his  wife.  Some  of  our  most  distin- 
guished men,  however,  hold  that  the  Scriptures  give  the  right  of  di- 
.vorce  solely  to  the  husband.  Our  book  also  teaches  that  wilful  deser- 
tion is  a  legitimate  ground  of  divorce,  a  vincuio  matrimonii,  but  many 
of  our  brethren  in  the  ministry  do  not  believe  this.  Other  Presbyte- 
rians again,  knowing  that  our  Lord  says,  "  Whosoever  putteth  away 
his  wife,  and  marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery,"  cannot  bring 
themselves  to  believe  that  there  can  be  any  such  divorce  as  renders  a 
second  marriage  lawful.  Our  standards  deny  the  lawfulness  of  the 
marriage  of  a  man  with  the  sister  of  his  deceased  wife,  yet  it  is  noto- 
rious that  a  large  portion,  probably  a  large  majority,  of  our  ministers 
openly  reject  that  doctrine.  Now  w^hat  is  to  be  thought  of  a  rule, 
which,  if  applied,  would  cast  out  of  the  ministry  all  these  classes — 
a  rule  which  would  have  strangled  the  Church  in  its  infancy,  and 
which  would  kill  it  now  in  a  week — a  rule  which  would  have  deposed 
from  the  ministry  the  venerable  Dr.  Ashbel  Green,  and  scores  of  men 
among  our  fathers 'of  like  standing  ?  If  the  rule  that  no  man  should 
be  allowed  to  exercise  the  ministry  in  our  Church,  who  did  not  adopt 
every  proposition  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  should  be  car- 
ried out,  we  verily  believe  we  should  be  left  almost  alone.  We  are  not 
sure  that  we  personally  know  a  dozen  ministers  besides  ourselves,  who 
could  stand  the  test.  We  should  have  to  mourn  the  exodus  of  our  val- 
ued friends,  the  editors  of  the  Presbyterian,  and  should  doubtless  be 
called  to  bid  a  tearful  adieu  to  the  venerable  "  G.,"  of  Richmond,  Vir- 
ginia. As  we  have  no  desire  to  sit  thus  solitary  on  the  ruins  of  our 
noble  Church,  we  enter  a  solemn  protest  against  a  principle  which 
would  wouk  such  desolation. 

4.  There  is  another  view  of  this  subject.  We  all  admit  that  the 
preservation  of  the  truth  is  one  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the 
Church,  and  that  she  is  bound  to  guard  against  the  admission  of  un- 
sound men  into  the  ministry.  We  all  admit  that  the  Holy  Ghost  calls 
men  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  that  soundness  in  the  faith  is  one  of  the 
marks  by  which  that  call  is  authenticated  to  the  Church.  We  admit, 
further,  that  the  Church  has  no  right  to  call  men  to  the  sacred  office  ; 
that  the  authority  to  preach  does  not  come  from  her  ;  that  the  prero- 
gative of  the  Church  is  simply  to  judge  of  the  evidence  of  a  divine 
call.  Her  office  is  purely  ministerial,  and  should  be  exercised  cau- 
tiously and  humbly.  She  has  no  more  right  unduly  to  lower,  or  to 
raise  unduly  the  evidence  which  she  demands  of  a  vocation  to  the  min- 


332  CHURCH  POLITY. 

istry,  than  she  has  to  alter  the  evidence  of  a  call  to  grace  and  salva- 
tion. If  she  does  not,  and  dares  not,  require  perfect  holiness  of  heart 
and  life,  as  proof  of  a  call  to  fellowship  with  the  Son  of  God,  neither  can 
she  demand  perfect  knowledge  or  perfect  freedom  from  error,  as  evi- 
dence of  a  call  to  the  ministry.  Now,  who  is  prepared,  standing  in  the 
presence  of  Christ,  and  acting  in  his  name,  to  say,  that  so  far  as  the 
Presbyterian  Church  can  prevent  it,  no  man  shall  be  ordained  to  the 
ministry,  no  man  shall  be  a  pastor,  no  man  shall  be  a  missionary,  no 
man  shall  preach  the  gospel  anywhere,  to  the  poor  and  the  perishing, 
who  does  not  believe  that  wilful  desertion  is  a  legitimate  ground  of  di- 
vorce ?  Who  is  ready  to  shut  up  every  Church,  silence  every  pulpit, 
abandon  every  missionary  station,  where  that  principle  is  not  main- 
tained ?  There  doubtless  have  been,  and  there  still  may  be,  men  who 
would  do  all  this,  and,  in  the  mingled  spirit  of  the  Pharisee  and  Do- 
minican, rejoice  in  the  desolation  they  had  wrought,  and  shout,  "  The 
temj)le  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  we."  God  forbid  that 
such  a  spirit  should  ever  gain  the  ascendency  in  our  Church.  Let  us 
keep  our  hands  off  of  God's  ark,  and  not  assume  to  be  more  zealous  for 
his  truth,  or  more  solicitous  for  the  purity  of  his  Church,  than  he  is 
himself.  We  may  well  bear  with  infirmities  and  errors  which  he  pities 
and  pardons  in  his  servants. 

There  is  another  great  evil  connected  with  these  inordinate  demands. 
Whenever  a  man  is  induced  either  to  do  what  he  does  not  approve,  or 
to  profess  what  he  does  not  believe,  his  conscience  is  defiled.  Those 
who  lead  their  brethren  thus  to  act,  the  Apostle  says,  cause  them  to  of- 
fend, and  destroy  those  for  whom  Christ  died.  To  adopt  every  propo- 
sition contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  is 
more  than  the  vast  majority  of  our  ministers  either  do,  or  can  do.  To 
make  them  profess  to  do  it,  is  a  great  sin.  It  hurts  their  conscience. 
It  fosters  a  spirit  of  evasion  and  subterfuge.  It  teaches  them  to  take 
creeds  in  a  "  non-natural  sense."  It  at  once  vitiates  and  degrades. 
There  are  few  greater  evils  connected  with  establishments  than  the 
overwhelming  temptations  which  they  offer  to  make  men  profess  what 
they  do  not  believe.  Under  such  strict  requirements,  men  make  light 
of  professions,  and  are  ready  to  adoj^t  any  creed  which  opens  the  door 
to  wealth  or  office.  The  over  strict,  the  world  over,  are  the  least 
faithful. 

The  third  interpretation  of  the  formula  prescribed  for  the  adoption 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  the  true  via  media.  It  is  equally  removed 
from  "  the  substance  of  doctrine  "  theory,  which  has  no  definite  mean- 
ing, leaving  it  entirely  undetermined  what  the  candidate  professes ;  and 
from  the  impracticable  theory  which  supposes  the  candidate  to  profess 
to  receive  every  proposition  contained  in  the  Confession.     What  every 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  333 

minister  of  our  Church  is  bound  to  do  is  to  declare  that  he  "  receives 
and  adopts  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  The  words  "  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  "  have  a  fixed,  historical  meaning.  The  objection  that 
it  is  an  open  question,  what  doctrines  belong  to  the  system  and  what 
do  not,  and  therefore  if  the  obligation  be  limited  to  the  adoption  of  the 
system,  it  cannot  be  known  what  doctrines  are  received  and  what  are 
rejected,  is  entirely  unfounded.  If  the  question,  "  What  is  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  by  the  Reformed  Churches  ?"  be  submitted  to  a  hun- 
dred Romanists,  to  a  hundred  Lutherans,  to  a  hundred  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  or  to  a  hundred  sceptics,  if  intelligent  and  candid, 
they  would  all  give  precisely  the  same  answer.  There  is  not  the  slight- 
est doubt  or  dispute  among  disinterested  scholars  as  to  what  doctrines 
do,  and  what  do  not  belong  to  the  faith  of  the  Reformed.  The  West- 
minster Confession  contains  three  distinct  classes  of  doctrines.  First, 
those  common  to  all  Christians,  which  are  summed  up  in  the  ancient 
creeds,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian,  which  are  adoj^t- 
ed  by  all  Churches.  Secondly,  those  which  are  common  to  all  Protest- 
ants, and  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  Romanists.  Thirdly, 
those  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  by  which  they  are 
distinguished,  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  Lutherans,  and  on  the  other 
from  the  Remonstrants,  or  Arminians,  and  other  sects  of  later  histori- 
cal origin.  From  the  Lutherans  the  Reformed  were  distinguished 
principally  by  their  doctrine  on  the  sacraments,  and  from  the  Armin- 
ians, by  the  five  characteristic  points  of  Augustinianism,  rejected  by 
the  Remonstrants,  and  affirmed  at  the  Synod  of  Dort  by  all  the  Re- 
formed Churches,  viz. :  those  of  Switzerland,  Germany,  France,  Eng- 
land and  Scotland,  as  well  as  of  Holland.  What  those  points  are 
everybody  knows.  First.  The  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  i.  e.,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  the  judicial  ground  of  the  condemna- 
tion of  his  race,  so  that  their  being  born  in  sin  is  the  penal  conse- 
quence of  his  transgression.  Second.  The  doctrine  of  the  sinful,  innate 
depravity  of  nature,  whereby  we  are  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  op- 
posite to  all  good.  Therefore  there  can  be  no  self-conversion,  no  co- 
operation with  the  grace  of  God  in  regeneration,  as  the  Arminians 
taught,  and  no  election  not  to  resist  as  the  Lutherans  affirmed.  With 
this  doctrine  of  absolute  inability  consequently  is  connected  that  of  . 
efficacious,  as  opposed  to  merely  preventing  and  assisting  grace. 
Thirdly.  The  doctrine  that  as  Christ  came  in  the  execution  of  the 
covenant  of  redemption,  in  which  his  people  were  promised  to  him  as 
his  reward,  his  work  had  a  special  reference  to  them,  and  rendered 
their  salvation  certain.  Fourth.  The  doctrine  of  gratuitous,  personal 
election  to  eternal  life ;  and.  Fifth.  The  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of 


334  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  saints.  It  is  a  matter  of  history  that  these  doctrines  constitute  the 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Eeformed  Churches.  And,  therefore, 
any  man  who  receives  these  several  classes  of  doctrine,  (viz. :  those 
common  to  all  Christians,  those  common  to  all  Protestants,  and  those 
peculiar  to  the  Reformed  Churches,)  holds  in  its  integrity  the  system  of 
doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  This  is  all  that  he 
professes  to  do  when  he  adopts  that  Confession  in  the  form  prescribed 
in  our  Constitution.  A  man  is  no  more  at  liberty  to  construct  a  sys- 
tem of  theology  for  himself,  and  call  it  the  system  contained  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  than  he  is  authorized  to  spin  a  system  of  philoso- 
phy out  of  his  head,  and  call  it  Platonism.  The  first  argument,  there- 
fore, in  favour  of  this  interj^retation  of  our  ordination  service  is  that  it 
is  in  accordance  with  the  literal,  established  meaning  of  the  words,  and 
attaches  to  them  a  definite  meaning,  so  that  every  one  knows  precisely 
what  the  candidate  professes. 

2.  The  second  argument  is,  that  such  was  and  is  the  intention  of  the 
Church  in  requiring  the  adoption  of  the  Confession.  This  has  already 
been  proved  from  the  meaning  of  the  language  employed,  from  the  offi- 
cial explanations  given  of  that  language,  from  the  declarations  of  the 
framers  of  our  Constitution,  and  from  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Church. 
No  case  can  be  j:)roduced  from  our  annals  of  any  man  being  censured 
or  rejected,  who  received  the  system  of  doctrines  contained  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  in  the  sense  above  stated.  The  Church  in  point  of 
fact,  never  has  required  more,  and  no  man  has  now  the  right  to  exalt 
or  extend  her  requirements.  What  is  here  said  does  not  imply  that 
the  deliverances  contained  in  the  Confession  relating  to  civil  magis- 
trates, the  power  of  the  state,  conditions  of  Church  membership,  mar- 
riage, divorce,  and  other  matters  lying  outside  of  "the  system  of  doc- 
trine "  in  its  theological  sense,  are  unimportant  or  without  authority. 
They  are  the  judgments  of  the  Church  solemnly  expressed  on  very  im- 
portant subjects;  but  they  are  judgments  which  she  most  wisely  has 
not  seen  fit  to  make  conditions  of  ministerial  communion.  As  she  does 
not  require  the  adoption  of  her  whole  system  of  doctrine  as  the  condi- 
tion of  Church  fellowship ;  so  she  does  not  require  the  adoption  of  these 
collateral  and  subordinate  judgments  as  the  condition  of  ministerial 
communion.  /And  as  her  receiving  gladly  to  her  bosom  thousands 
who  are  not  able  intelligently  to  adopt  her  whole  system  of  faith,  does 
not  imply  that  she  does  not  value  that  system,  or  that  she  does  not 
strive  to  bring  all  her  members,  even  the  weakest,  to  adopt  it  in  its 
integrity;  so  her  not  making  her  judgments  of  points  lying  outside  of 
that  system  a  condition  of  ministerial  communion,  does  not  imply  that 
she  undervalues  those  judgments,  or  that  she  would  not  rejoice  to  see 
them  universally  embraced.     There  are  many  things  both  true  and 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  335 

good  which  cannot  be  made  the  condition  of  either  Christian  or  minis- 
terial fellowship. 

3.  A  third  argument  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  meaning  of  the 
formula  used  in  the  ordination  service  is,  that  it  is  the  only  one  con- 
sistent with  a  good  conscience,  and  with  the  peace  and  union  of  the 
Church.  To  make  every  minister  affirm  that  he  adopts  as  a  part  of 
his  faith  every  proposition  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  would 
make  the  vast  majority  of  them  profess  an  untruth,  and  what  those 
demanding  the  profession  know  to  be  untrue.  This  is  a  dreadful  evil. 
And  it  is  a  very  great  evil  for  any  portion  of  our  brethren  to  represent  the 
great  majority  of  their  fellow-ministers  as  guilty  of  a  false  profession. 
This  is  done  by  every  man  who  asserts  that  to  adopt  the  system  of  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  Confession  means  to  adopt  every  proposition  in  the 
book.  He  thereby  asserts  that  every  minister  who  does  not  believe  that 
desertion  is  a  scriptural  ground  of  divorce,  or  that  every  true  Christian 
should  be  received  to  sealing  ordinances,  or  that  a  man  may  not  marry 
his  desceased  wife's  sister,  is  guilty  of  a  breach  of  his  ordination  vows. 

Does  not  the  doctrine  concerning  subscription  here  advocated  answer 
all  desirable  or  practicable  purposes  ?  "We  can  agree ;  and  to  a  wonderful 
extent,  to  an  extent  greater  than  in  any  other  age,  in  so  large  a  commu- 
nion, we  do  agree  as  to  "  the  system  of  doctrine."  Our  ministers  hold  the 
faith  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  its  integrity.  This  they  are  bound  to 
do,  and  this  they  do  with  exceptions  so  few  that  it  would  be  difficult 
to  point  them  out.  If  we  are  not  satisfied  with  this,  we  shall  soon  split 
into  insignificant  sects,  each  contending  for  some  minor  point,  and  all 
allowing  "the  system  of  doctrine"  to  go  to  destruction.  If  there  is 
any  dependence  to  be  placed  on  the  the  teachings  of  history,  the  men 
who  begin  with  making  the  tithing  of  anise  and  cummin  of  equal  im- 
portance with  justice  and  mercy,  are  sure  in  the  end  to  cling  to  the 
anise,  and  let  the  mercy  go. 

As  so  many  of  our  brethren  have  taken  exception  to  the  remarks 
in  our  last  number,  we  deem  this  extended  exposition  of  our  views  on 
the  matter  of  subscription,  due  to  them  no  less  than  to  ourselves.  We 
are  confident  there  is  no  real  disagreement  between  us  on  this  subject. 
It  is  a  misunderstanding,  as  we  hope  and  believe,  due  to  the  absence  of 
all  explanation  or  limitation  of  a  passing  remark,  which,  although  true 
in  itself,  and  true  in  the  sense  intended,  was  capable  of  an  application 
wide  of  the  truth. 

b.  In   View  of  the  Reunion.  [*] 
************ 
Every  minister  at  his  ordination  is  required  to  declare  that  he  adopts 

[*From  article  on  ''  The  General  Assembly;'^  Princeton  Bev{ew,lS67,  p.  506.] 


336  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechism,  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  tlie  sacred  Scriptures.  Tliere  are  three  ways  in 
which  these  words  have  been,  and  still  are,  interpreted.  First,  some 
understand  them  to  mean  that  every  proposition  contained  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  is  included  in  the  profession  made  at  ordination. 
Secondly,  others  say  that  they  mean  just  what  the  words  import.  What 
is  adopted  is  the  "  system  of  doctrine."  The  system  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  is  a  known  and  admitted  scheme  of  doctrine,  and  that  scheme, 
nothing  more  or  less,  we  profess  to  adopt.  The  third  view  of  the  sub- 
ject is,  that  by  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confession  is 
meant  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity  and  nothing  more. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  interpretations  it  is  enough  to  say :  1.  That 
it  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  words.  There  are  many  propositions  con- 
tained in  the  AVestminster  Confession  which  do  not  belong  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  Augustinian,  or  Reformed  system.  A  man  may  be  a  true 
Augustinian  or  Calvinist,  and  not  believe  that  the  Pope  is  the  Anti- 
christ predicted  by  St.  Paul ;  or  that  the  18th  chapter  of  Leviticus  is 
still  binding.  2.  Such  a  rule  of  interpretation  can  never  be  practically 
carried  out,  without  dividing  the  Church  into  innumerable  fragments. 
It  is  impossible  that  a  body  of  several  thousand  ministers  and  elders 
should  think  alike  on  all  the  topics  embraced  in  such  an  extended  and 
minute  formula  of  belief  3.  Such  has  never  been  the  rule  adopted 
in  our  Church.  Individuals  have  held  it,  but  the  Church  as  a  body 
never  has.  Ko  prosecution  for  doctrinal  error  has  ever  been  attempted 
or  sanctioned,  except  for  errors  which  were  regarded  as  involving  the 
rejection,  not  of  explanations  of  doctrines,  but  of  the  doctrines  them- 
selves. For  example,  our  Confession  teaches  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin.  That  doctrine  is  essential  to  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  system. 
Any  man  who  denies  that  doctrine,  thereby  rejects  the  system  taught 
in  our  Confession,  and  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  say  that  he  adopts 
it.  Original  sin,  however,  is  one  thing ;  the  way  in  which  it  is  ac- 
counted for,  is  another.  The  doctrine  is,  that  such  is  the  relation  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity,  that  all  mankind,  descending  from  him 
by  ordinary  generation,  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation. 
Any  man  who  admits  this,  holds  the  doctrine.  But  there  are  at  least 
three  ways  of  accounting  for  this  fact.  The  scriptural  explanation  as 
given  in  our  standards  is,  that  the  "  covenant  being  made  with  Adam 
not  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind,  descending 
from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in 
his  first  transgression."  The  fact  that  mankind  fell  into  that  estate  of 
sin  and  misery  in  which  they  are  born,  is  accounted  for  on  the  principle 
of  representation.  Adam  was  constituted  our  head  and  representative, 
so  that  his  sin  is  the  judicial  ground  of  our  condemnation  and  of  the 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  837 

consequent  loss  of  the  Divine  image,  and  of  the  state  of  spiritual  death 
in  which  all  men  come  into  the  world.  This,  as  it  is  the  scriptural,  so 
it  is  the  Church  view  of  the  subject.  It  is  the  view  held  in  the  Latin 
and  Lutheran,  as  well  as  in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  therefore  be- 
longs to  the  Church  catholic.  Still  it  is  not  essential  to  the  doctrine. 
Realists  admit  the  doctrine,  but  unsatisfied  with  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentative responsibility,  assume  that  humanity  as  a  generic  life,  acted 
and  sinned  in  Adam,  and,  therefore,  that  his  sin  is  the  act,  with  its 
demerit  and  consequences,  of  every  man  in  whom  that  generic  life  is 
individualized.  Others,  accepting  neither  of  these  solutions,  assert  that 
the  fact  of  original  sin  Qi.  e.,  the  sinfulness  and  condemnation  of  man 
at  birth)  is  to  be  accounted  for  in  the  general  law  of  propagation. 
Like  begets  like.  Adam  became  sinful,  and  hence  all  his  posterity  are 
born  in  a  state  of  sin,  or  with  a  sinful  nature.  Although  these  views  are 
not  equally  scriptural,  or  equally  in  harmony  with  our  Confession, 
nevertheless  they  leave  the  doctrine  intact,  and  do  not  work  a  rejection 
of  the  system  of  which  it  is  an  essential  part. 

So  also  of  the  doctrine  of  inability.  That  man  is  by  the  fall  ren- 
dered utterly  indisposed,  opposite,  and  disabled  to  all  spiritual  good,  is 
a  doctrine  of  the  Confession  as  well  as  of  Scripture.  And  it  is  essen- 
tial to  the  system  of  doctrine  embraced  by  all  the  Reformed  Church. 
Whether  men  have  plenary  power  to  regenerate  themselves ;  or  can 
cooperate  in  the  work  of  their  regeneration ;  or  can  effectually  resist 
the  converting  grace  of  God,  are  questions  which  have  separated  Pela- 
gians, the  later  Romanists,  Semi-Pelagians,  Lutherans,  and  Arminians, 
from  Augustinians  or  Calvinists.  The  denial  of  the  inability  of  fallen 
man,  therefore,  of  necessity  works  the  rejection  of  Calvinism.  But  if 
the  fact  be  admitted,  it  is  not  essential  whether  the  inability  be  called 
natural  or  moral ;  whether  it  be  attributed  solely  to  the  perverseness 
of  the  will,  or  to  the  blindness  of  the  understanding.  These  points  of 
difference  are  not  unimportant;  but  they  do  not  affect  the  essence  of 
the  doctrine. 

Our  Confession  teaches  that  God  foreordains  whatever  comes  to  pass ; 
that  he  executes  his  decrees  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence ; 
that  his  providential  government  is  holy,  wise,  and  powerful,  control- 
ling all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions ;  that  from  the  fallen  mass 
of  men  he  has,  from  all  eternity,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  elected 
some  to  everlasting  life ;  that  by  the  incarnation  and  mediatorial  work 
of  his  eternal  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the  effectual  work- 
ing of  his  Spirit,  he  has  rendered  the  salvation  of  his  people  abso- 
lutely certain  ;  that  the  reason  why  some  are  saved  and  others  are  not, 
is  not  the  foresight  of  their  faith  and  repentance,  but  solely  because  he 
has  elected  some  and  not  others,  and  that  in  execution  of  his  purpose, 
22 


338  CHUECH  POLITY. 

in  his  own  good  time,  he  sends  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  so  operates 
on  them  as  to  render  their  repentance,  faith,  and  holy  living  absolutely 
certain.  Now  it  is  plain  that  men  may  differ  as  to  the  mode  of  God's 
providential  government,  or  the  operations  of  his  grace,  and  retain  the 
facts  which  constitute  the  essence  of  this  doctrinal  scheme.  But  if 
any  one  teaches  that  God  cannot  effectually  control  the  acts  of,  free 
agents  without  destroying  their  liberty ;  that  he  cannot  render  the  re- 
pentance or  faith  of  any  man  certain ;  that  he  does  all  he  can  to  con- 
vert every  man,  it  would  be  an  insult  to  reason  and  conscience,  to  say 
that  he  held  the  system  of  doctrine  which  embraces  the  facts  and  prin- 
ciples above  stated. 

The  same  strain  of  remark  might  be  made  in  reference  to  the  other 
great  doctrines  which  constitute  the  Augustinian  system.  Enough, 
however,  has  been  said  to  illustrate  the  principle  of  interpretation  for 
which  Old-school  men  contend.  We  do  not  expect  that  our  ministers 
should  adopt  every  proposition  contained  in  our  standards.  This  they 
are  not  required  to  do.  But  they  are  required  to  adopt  the  systein4— 
and  that  system  consists  of  certain  doctrines,  no  one  of  which  can  be 
omitted  without  destroying  its  identity.  Those  doctrines  are,  the  ple- 
nary inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  SaxC 
the  consequent  infallibility  of  all  their  teachings  ;  the  doctrine  of_ttie 
Trinity,  that  there  is  one  God  subsisting  in  three  persons,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit,  the  same  in  substance  and  equal  in  power  and  glory ; 
the  doctrine  of  decrees  and  predestination  as  above  stated  ;  the  doctrine 
of_creation,  viz.,  that  the  universe  and  all  that  it  contains  is  not  eternal, 
is  not  a  necessary  product  of  the  life  of  God,  is  not  an  emanation  from 
the  divine  substance,  but  owes  its  existence  as  to  substance  and  form 
solely  to  his  will :  and  in  reference  to  man,  that  he  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God,  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness,  and  not  in 
puris  naturalibus,  without  any  moral  character ;  the  doctriae.of  ^oyi- 
dence,  or  that  God  effectually  governs  all  his  creatures  and  all  their 
actions,  so  that  nothing  comes  to  pass  which  is  not  in  accordance  with 
his  infinitely  wise,  holy,  and  benevolent  purposes ; — the  doctrine  of  the 
covenants :  the  first,  or  covenant  of_ works,  wherein  life  was  promised 
to  Adam,  and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and 
personal  obedience,  and  the  second,  or  coyenant  of  grace,  wherein  God 
freely  offers  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring 
of  them  faith  in  him  that  they  may  be  saved,  and  promising  to  give 
unto  all  who  are  ordained  unto  life  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  will- 
ing and  able  to  believe ; — the  doctrine  concerning  Christ  our  Mediator, 
ordained  of  God  to  be  our  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  the  head  and  Sa- 
viour of  his  Church,  the  heir  of  all  things  and  judge  of  the  world,  unto 
whom  he  did,  from  eternity,  give  a  people  to  be  his  seed,  to  be  by  him 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  339 

in  time  redeemed,  called,  justified,  sanctified,  and  glorified,  and  that  the 
eternal  Son  of  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  took  upon  him 
man's  nature,  so  that  two  whole,  perfect,  and  distinct  natures,  the  God- 
head and  the  manhood,  were  inseparably  joined  together  in  one  person, 
without  conversion,  composition,  or  confusion;  that  this  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  hath  fully  sat- 
isfied the  justice  of  his  Father;  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation, 
but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  all  those 
whom  the  Father  hath  given  to  him ; — the  doctrine  of  free  will,  viz. : 
that  man  was  created  not  only  a  free  agent,  but  with  full  ability  to 
choose  good  or  evil,  and  by  that  choice  determine  his  future  character 
and  destiny ;  that  by  the  fall  he  has  lost  this  ability  to  spiritual  good ; 
that  in  conversion  God  by  his  Spirit  enables  the  sinner  freely  to  re- 
pent and  believe; — the  doctrine  ojLefiectual  calling,  or  regeneration, 
that  those,  and  those  only  whom  God  has  predestinated  unto  life,  he  ef- 
fectually calls  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  from  a  state  of  spiritual  death 
to  a  state  of  spiritual  life,  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty 
power  determining  their  wills,  thus  eflfectually  drawing  them  to  Christ ; 
yet  so  that  they  come  most  freely ; — and  that  this  eflfectual  calling  is  of 
God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing  foreseen  in 
man;  the  doctrine  of  justification,  that  it  is  a  free  act,  or  act  of  grace 
on  the  part  of  God;  that  it  does  not  consist  in  any  subjective  change 
of  state,  nor  simply  in  pardon,  but  includes  a  declaring  and  accepting 
the  sinner  as  righteous ;  that  it  is  founded  not  on  anything  wrought  in 
us  or  done  by  us ;  not  on  faith  or  evangelical  obedience,  but  simply  on 
what  Christ  has  done  for  us,  i.  e.,  in  his  obedience  and  sufierings  unto 
death ;  this  righteousness  of  Christ  being  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfac- 
tion to  the  justice  of  God,  his  exact  justice  and  rich  grace  are  glorified 
in  the  justification  of  sinners; — thejdqctrine  of  adoption,  that  those  who 
are  justified  are  received  into  the  family  of  God,  and  made  partakers 
of  the  spirit  and  privileges  of  his  children ; — the  doctrine  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  that  those  once  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  are,  by  his  pow- 
er and  indwelling,  in  the  use  of  the  appointed  means  of  grace,  ren- 
dered more  and  more  holy,  which  work,  although  always  imperfect  in 
this  life,  is  perfected  at  death ; — the  doctrine  of  saving  faith,  that  it  is 
the  gift  of  God,  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  Christian 
receives  as  true,  on  the  authority  of  God,  whatever  is  revealed  in  his 
word,  the  special  acts  of  which  faith  are  the  receiving  and  resting  upon 
Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification,  and  eternal  life; — the  doc- 
trine of  repentance,  that  the  sinner  out  of  the  sight  and  sense,  not  only 
of  the  danger,  but  of  the  odiousness  df  sin,  and  apprehension  of  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  does  with  grief  and  hatred  of  his  own  sins, 
turn  from  them  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  and  endeavour  after  new 


340  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

obedience ; — ^the  doctrine  of  good  works,  that  they  are  such  only  as 
God  has  commanded ;  that  they  are  the  fruits  of  faith ;  such  works,  al- 
though not  necessary  as  the  ground  of  our  justification,  are  indispensa- 
ble, in  the  case  of  adults,  as  the  uniform  products  of  the  indwelling  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  believers ; — the  doctrine_of  jhe  per- 
severance  of  the  saints,  that  those  once  effectually  called  and  sanctified 
by  the  Spirit,  can  never  totally  or  finally  fall  from  a  state  of  grace, 
because  the  decree  of  election  is  immutable,  because  Christ's  merit  is 
infinite,  and  his  intercession  constant ;  because  the  Spirit  abides  with 
the  people  of  God ;  and  because  the  covenant  of  grace  secures  the  sal- 
vation of  all  who  believe ; — the  doctrine  of  assurance ;  that  the  assu- 
rance of  salvation  is  desirable,  possible,  and  obligatory,  but  is  not  of 
the  essence  of  faith; — the  doctrine  of  the  law,  that  it  is  a  revelation  of 
the  Avill  of  God,  and  a  perfect  rule  of  righteousness ;  that  it  is  perpetu- 
ally obligatory  on  justified  persons  as  well  as  others,  although  believers 
are  not  under  it  as  a  covenant  of  works ; — the  doctrine  of  Oiristian 
liberty,  that  it  includes  freedom  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  law,  from  a  legal  spirit,  from  the  bondage  of  Satan  and  do- 
minion of  sin,  from  the  world  and  ultimately  from  all  -evil,  together 
with  free  access  to  God  as  his  children ;  since  the  advent  of  Christ,  his 
people  are  freed  also  from  the  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law  ;  God  alone 
is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience,  which  he  has  set  free  from  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  anything  contrary  to  his 
word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship.  The  doctrines  con- 
cerning worship  and  the  Sabbath,  concerning  vows  and  oaths,  of  the 
civil  magistrate,  of  marriage,  contain  nothing  peculiar  to  our  sys- 
tem, or  which  is  matter  of  controversy  among  Presbyterians.  The 
same  is  true  as  to  what  the  Confession  teaches  concerning  the  Church, 
of  the  communion  of  saints,  of  the  sacraments,  and  of  the  future  state, 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  the  final  judgment. 

That  such  is  the  system  of  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  is  a  mat- 
ter of  history.  It  is  the  system  which,  as  the  granite  formation  of  the 
earth,  underlies  and  sustains  the  whole  scheme  of  truth  as  revealed  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  without  which  all  the  rest  is  as  drifting  sand.  It 
has  been  from  the  beginning  the  life  and  soul  of  the  Church,  taught 
explicitly  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  more  fully  by  his  inspired  servants, 
and  always  professed  by  a  cloud  of  witnesses  in  the  Church.  It  has 
moreover  ever  been  the  esoteric  faith  of  true  believers,  adopted  in  their 
prayers  and  hymns,  even  when  rejected  from  their  creeds.  It  is  this 
system  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  pledged  to  profess,  to  defend, 
and  to  teach ;  and  it  is  a  breach  of  faith  to  God  and  man  if  she  fails  to 
require  a  profession  of  this  system  by  all  those  whom  she  receives  or 
ordains  as  teachers  and  guides  of  her  people.     It  is  for  the  adoption  of 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  341 

the  Confession  of  Faitli  in  this  sense  that  the  Old-school  have  always 
contended  as  a  matter  of  conscience. 

There   has,  however,   always  been  a  party  in  the   Church  which  ""/"T/ 
adopted  the  third  method  of  understanding  the  words  "  system  of  doc- 
trine," in  the  ordination  service,  viz.,  that  they  mean  nothing  more 
than  the  essential  doctrines  of  religion  or  of  Christianity. 

That  such  a  party  has  existed  is  plain,  1.  Because  in  our  original 
Synod,  President  Dickinson  and  several  other  members  openly  took 
this  ground.  President  Dickinson  was  oj)posed  to  all  human  creeds ; 
he  resisted  the  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  he  suc- 
ceeded in  having  it  adopted  with  the  ambiguous  words,  "  as  to  all  the 
essential  principles  of  religion."  This  may  mean  the  essential  princi- 
ples of  Christianity,  or  the  essential  principles  of  the  peculiar  system 
taught  in  the  Confession.  2.  This  mode  of  adopting  the  Confession 
gave  rise  to  immediate  and  general  complaint.  3.  When  President 
Davies  was  in  England,  the  latitudinarian  Presbyterians  and  other  dis- 
senters from  the  established  Church,  from  whom  he  expected  encourage- 
ment and  aid  in  his  mission,  objected  that  our  Synod  had  adopted  the 
Westminster  Confession  in  its  strict  meaning.  President  Davies  replied 
that  the  Synod  required  candidates  to  adopt  it  only  as  to  "  the  articles 
essential  to  Christianity."  *  4.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Creaghead,  a  member  of 
the  original  Synod,  withdrew  from  it  on  the  ground  of  this  lax  rule  of 
adoption.  5.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Harkness,  when  suspended  from  the 
ministry  by  the  Synod  for  doctrinal  errors,  complained  of  the  injustice 
and  inconsistency  of  such  censure,  on  the  ground  that  the  Synod  re- 
quired the  adoption  only  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  no  one 
of  which  he  had  called  in  question. 

While  it  is  thus  apparent  that  there  was  a  party  in  the  Church  who 
adopted  this  latitudinarian  principle  of  subscription,  the  Synod  itself 
never  did  adopt  it.  This  is  plain,  1.  Because  what  we  call  the  adopt- 
ing act,  and  which  includes  the  ambiguous  language  in  question,  the 
Synod  call  "  their  preliminary  act,"  i.  e.,  an  act  preliminary  to  the 
actual  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  That  adoption  was 
effected  in  a  subsequent  meeting  (on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day), 
in  which  the  Confession  was  adopted  in  all  its  articles,  except  what  in 
the  thirty-third  chapter  related  to  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  in 
matters  of  religion.  This  is  what  the  Synod  itself  called  its  adopting 
act.  2.  In  1730  the  Synod  unanimously  declared  that  they  required 
all  "  intrants  "  to  adopt  the  Confession  as  fully  as  they  themselves  had 
done.  A  similar  declarative  act  of  their  meaning  was  passed  in  1736. 
Again,  in  the  reply  to  the  complaints  of  Messrs.  Creaghead  and  Hark- 

*  See  Gillett's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  130. 


342  CHUECH  POLITY. 

ness,  it  was  asserted  that  the  Sjoiod  never  intended  that  the  Confession 
should  be  adopted  only  in  those  articles  essential  to  Christianity. 
3.  Over  and  over  again  at  different  periods — in  the  negotiations  for  the 
union  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  and  that  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  both  parties  declared  their  adhesion  to  the  whole  system  of  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  same  thing  was 
done  in  the  correspondence  of  our  Synod  with  that  of  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed Church,  and  in  their  letter  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  in  which  that  body  was  assured  that  we  had  the 
same  standard  of  doctrine  as  they  had.  4.  Finally,  when  in  1787  the 
General  Assembly  was  organized,  it  was  solemnly  declared  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as  then  revised  and  corrected,  was 
part  of  the  Constitution  of  this  Church.  No  man  has  ever  yet 
maintained  that  in  adopting  a  republican  constitution,  it  was  accepted 
only  as  embracing  the  general  principles  of  government,  common  to 
monarchies,  aristocracies,  and  democracies.* 

^  8.    Cliurcli  Membersbip  of  ministers,  [f] 

l^Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  x.  sec.  viii. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  169.] 

An  overture  from  the  Presbytery  of  Miami  brought  up  the  question, 
whether  ministers  should  have  their  names  enrolled  as  members  of 
particular  churches?  This  question  the  Assembly  answered  in  the 
negative.  Several  members  agreed  in  favour  of  an  affirmative  answer 
on  such  grounds  as  the  following :  A  minister  without  pastoral  charge 
is  not  connected  as  a  member  with  any  particular  church,  unless  his 
church  relation  is  sustained  and  continued,  notwithstanding  his  ordi- 
nation. Again,  cases  may  occur  in  which  a  minister  may  be  deposed 
and  yet  not  excommunicated,  he  is  then  no  longer  either  a  minister  or 
Church  member ;  he  is  not  subject  either  to  a  presbytery  or  session.  It 
was  also  argued  that  our  constitution  does  not  authorize  a  presbytery 
to  excommunicate  (which  we  presume  is  a  mistake)  ;  the  presbytery,  it 
was  said,  may  direct,  but  the  session  executes.  If  then,  a  minister  is 
excommunicated,  how  can  the  sentence  be  carried  into  effect  unless  he 
is  enrolled  as  the  member  from  some  particular  church,  and  when  no 
longer  a  member  of  the  presbytery,  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  its 
session  ? 

The  brethren  who  argued  for  a  negative  answer  to  the  overture, 
contended  that  membership  in  a  particular  church  necessarily  involved 

*  On  these  subjects  see  the  Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
by  Charles  Hodge,  vol.  i.  chap.  3. 

[f  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  ;  "  same  topic ;  Princeton  Beview, 
1843,  p.  421.] 


MINISTEES  WITHOUT  PASTORAL  CHAEGE.  343 

subjection  to  the  session  of  that  church,  but  as  the  minister  is  not  sub- 
ject to  the  session,  he  should  not  be  enrolled  as  though  he  were  under 
its  authority.  The  relation  which  a  minister  sustains  as  a  member  of 
presbytery  having  jurisdiction  over  a  session,  is  inconsistent  with  his 
subjection  to  that  session  as  a  church  member.  And  although  a  ruling 
elder  may,  as  a  member  of  presbytery,  be  over  a  session,  and  yet  as  an 
elder,  subject  to  its  jurisdiction;  yet  as  he  is  only  a  member  of  the 
presbytery  during  its  sessions,  and  by  special  delegation,  his  relation  to 
the  church  and  to  its  session  is  essentially  different  from  that  of  a 
minister.  The  General  Assembly  has  decided  that  licentiates  are 
members  of  particular  churches,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  session,  until  they  are  ordained ;  which,  of  course,  implies  that 
their  relation  to  the  church  is  changed  by  ordination ;  which  is  no 
longer  that  of  membership  in  a  particular  church,  but  that  of  an 
overseer  of  a  particular  church  and  member  of  the  Church  in  general. 
When  he  ceases  to  be  a  minister,  he  becomes  de  facto  subject  to  the  par- 
ticular church  within  whose  limits  he  may  reside. 

This  whole  question  seems  to  be  one  more  theoretical  than  practical. 
There  was  no  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  relation  in  which  a  minister 
stands  to  the  Church,  but  only  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  denominating 
and  expressing  that  relation.  All  admit  that  while  he  has  a  right  to 
the  privileges  of  a  particular  church,  he  is  not  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  its  session,  and  that  he  has  no  need  of  a  letter  of  dismission  and 
recommendation  to  entitle  him  to  the  same  privileges  in  another  parti- 
cular church.  Is  he  then  a  member  of  any  particular  church  ?  That 
depends  on  what  is  meant  by  member,  or  on  what  membership  implies. 
If  it  implies  nothing  more  than  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church 
for  himself  and  children,  he  is  a  member ;  but  if  it  also  implies  subjec- 
tion he  is  not  a  member.  In  all  other  cases  it  confessedly  does  imply 
subjection.  It  would  seem  very  incongruous  and  of  evil  tendency,  to 
express  by  the  same  term  and  in  the  same  way,  relations  so  essentially 
distinct,  as  those  in  which  a  pastor  and  private  Christian  stands  to  the 
same  church.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly,  accordant  as  it  is  with 
the  usage  of  all  Presbyterian  Churches,  will,  we  doubt  not,  meet  with 
general  approbation. 

§  9.  ministers  without  Pastoral  Charge.  [^] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec  viii. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  163.] 

The  committee  to  whom  an  overture  has  been  referred,  questioning 
the  right  of  ministers  not  acting  as  pastors,  to  sit  in  Church  judicato- 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assembly;"  same  topic;  Princeton  Itexiev), 
1835,  p.  476.] 


344  CHURCH  POLITY. 

ries,  reported  against  tliat  right.  Dr.  Ely  said,  the  adoption  of  the  re- 
port would  disfranchise  ministers  and  destroy  ministerial  parity.  Dr. 
Junkin  said,  it  would  take  away  half  the  ministers  of  New  York. 
A  president  of  a  college  was  virtually  the  pastor  of  the  college,  and 
often  performed  the  duties  of  a  pastor.  Mr.  Dickey  maintained,  that 
it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  Presbyterianism,  that  the  Church 
should  have  the  choice  of  their  rulers.  Reject  this  report  and  you  leave 
some  ministers,  sitting  to  govern  the  Church,  whom  the  Church  never 
called ;  or  others,  whom  having  called,  she,  after  trial,  rejected.  It  con- 
tradicts first  principles  and  the  uniform  practice  of  Presbyterians 
throughout  the  world,  except  in  the  United  States.  This  subject  after 
some  further  debate,  was  committed  to  Drs.  Blythe  and  Hoge,  and 
Messrs.  Monfort  and  A.  O.  Patterson,  to  report  to  the  next  Assembly. 
This  is  a  diflicult  subject.  When  our  constitution  was  revised  there 
were  some  members  of  the  committee  of  revision  very  anxious  to  intro- 
duce a  provision  declaring  that  no  minister  Avho  was  not  a  j^astor  should 
be  allowed  to  sit  in  any  Church  judicatory  as  a  member.  It  is  certain 
that  there  are  two  principles  of  our  system  violated  by  our  present 
practice  on  this  subject.  The  one  is  that  referred  to  by  Mr.  Dickey, 
and  mentioned  above ;  the  other  is,  that  there  should  be  in  all  Church 
courts  an  equal  representation  of  ministers  and  laymen.  It  is  the 
theory  of  our  constitution  that  each  church  has  one  pastor,  and  it  has 
a  right  to  send  one  ruling  elder  to  presbytery  and  synod.  And  these 
bodies  when  constituted  agreeably  to  the  theory  of  Presbyterianism, 
are  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  clergymen  and  laymen.  Our  pre- 
sent practice  destroys  entirely  this  equality.  In  many  presbyteries, 
(as  for  example  that  of  New  Brunswick,)  the  number  of  ministers  with- 
out charge  is  so  great  as  to  reduce  the  lay  members  to  a  very  incon- 
siderable numerical  part  of  these  bodies ;  though  there  are  other  presby- 
teries where,  from  the  number  of  their  small  vacant  churches,  the 
elders  preponderate.  There  are  also  serious  inconveniences  resulting 
from  the  course  now  pursued,  arising  from  the  great  multiplication  of 
ministers  of  this  class.  We  have  so  many  presidents  and  professors 
of  colleges,  professors  of  theological  seminaries,  agents  of  benevolent 
societies,  teachers  of  schools,  besides  supernumeraries  of  various  kinds 
in  the  ministry,  that  we  are  not  surprised  that  the  pastors  and  elders 
are  beginning  to  be  alarmed.  There  are,  however,  both  principles  and 
inconveniences  to  be  taken  into  account  on  the  other  side.  When  a 
man  is  ordained  to  the  ministry  he  becomes  a  member  of  presbytery, 
and  has  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  presbyter.  How  can  he  be 
deprived  of  these  rights  ?  Besides,  he  is  subject  to  the  various  judica- 
tories of  the  Church,  and  bound  by  the  laws  which  they  may  enact.  Is 
he  to  have  no  voice  in  making  these  laws,  either  as  a  layman  or  minis- 


DEMISSION  OF  THE  MINISTRY.  345 

ter?  He  cannot  become  a  layman  except  by  deposition.  He  is  not  a 
member  of  any  Church,  or  subject  to  any  session.  Is  he  then  to  be 
subject  to  a  presbytery  of  which  he  is  not  a  member,  and  to  be  tried  by 
men  no  longer  his  peers?  As  this  matter,  however,  has  been  referred 
to  a  wise  committee,  we  hope  they  may  be  able  to  discover  some  method 
of  reconciling  these  and  other  difficulties,  with  the  true  principles  of 
Presbyteriauism,  and  the  best  interests  of  the  Church. 

^10.  Demission  of  the  Ministry. [^^] 

[^Form  of  Government,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii. —  Digest  of  1873,  p.  165  ff.  ] 
The  last  General  Assembly  adopted  the  following  overture,  viz. 

"  Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Presbyteries  whether  the  following  sections 
shall  be  added  to  the  loth  chapter  of  the  Form  of  Government,  namely, 

"  16.  The  office  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  is  perpetual,  and  cannot  be  laid  aside 
at  pleasure.  No  person  can  be  divested  of  it  but  by  deposition.  Yet,  from  va- 
rious causes,  a  minister  may  become  incapable  of  performing  the  duties  of  the  of- 
fice ;  or  he  may,  though  chargeable  with  neither  heresy  nor  immorality,  become 
unacceptable  in  his  official  character.  In  such  case  he  may  cease  to  be  an  acting 
minister. 

"  17.  Whenever  a  minister,  from  any  cause  not  inferring  heresy,  crime  or  scan- 
dal, shall  be  incapable  of  serving  the  Church  to  edification,  the  presbytery  shall 
take  order  on  the  subject,  and  state  the  fact,  together  with  the  reason  of  it,  on  their 
record.  And  when  any  person  has  thus  ceased  to  be  an  acting  minister,  he  shall 
not  be  a  member  of  any  presbytery  or  synod,  but  shall  be  subject  to  discipline  as 
other  ministers,  provided  always,  that  nothing  of  this  kind  shall  be  done  without 
the  consent  of  the  individual  in  question,  except  by  the  advice  of  the  synod ;  and 
provided,  also,  that  no  case  shall  be  finally  decided  except  at  a  stated  meeting  of 
the  presbytery. 

"  18.  Any  minister  having  demitted  the  exercise  of  his  office  in  the  manner 
herein  provided,  may,  if  the  presbytery  which  acted  on  his  demission  think  pro- 
per, be  restored  to  the  exercise  thereof,  and  to  all  the  rights  incident  thereto,  pro- 
vided, that  the  consent  of  the  synod  be  obtained,  in  case  his  demission  was  or- 
dered by  the  synod  in  the  manner  above  recited." 

This  overture  makes  a  distinction  between  the  exercise  of  the  minis- 
try and  the  ministry  itself;  the  former  may  be  demitted,  the  latter 
cannot  be  laid  aside  either  at  the  pleasure  of  the  party,  or  by  the 
action  of  the  presbytery.  Once  a  minister,  always  a  minister,  unless  in 
cases  of  deposition.  The  overture  proposes  that  the  want  of  ability  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  the  ministry,  or  want  of  acceptableness,  shall, 
provided  the  party  consent,  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  demission  of 
the  exercise  of  the  office.  Should,  in  the  judgment  of  the  presbytery, 
these  reasons  exist,  the  presbytery  may,  with  the  advice  of  synod,  en- 

[* Article,  same  title,  Princeton  Review,  1859,  p.  360,] 


316  CHUECH  POLITY. 

force  this  demission,  ■without  the  assent  of  the  party  concerned.  The 
effect  of  the  demission  contemplated  is  not  to  deprive  the  minister  of 
his  office,  but  only  of  certain  of  its  prerogatives.  He  ceases  to  have  the 
right  to  sit  and  act  as  a  member  of  presbytery ;  but  he  does  not  become 
a  layman.  He  is  subject,  not  to  the  session,  but  to  the  presbytery; 
and  may  be  restored  to  all  the  privileges  of  his  office,  by  the  simple  vote 
of  the  presbytery,  without  any  renewed  trials  or  ordination. 

To  have  any  intelligent  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  proposed 
measure,  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  understand  what  the  ministry  is. 
Is  it  a  work,  or  an  office  ?  If  the  latter,  what  are  its  peculiar  charac- 
teristics? In  what  sense  is  it "  perpetual  ?"  Why  may  it  not  be  re- 
signed as  other  offices  may  be  ?  There  is  a  large  body  of  distinguished 
men,  ancient  and  modern,  and  some  Christian  sects,  who  deny  that  the 
ministry  is  an  office.  They  assert  that  it  is  simply  a  work.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  clergy  and  the  laity  is  said  to  be  not  merely  hu- 
man as  to  its  origin,  but  altogether  arbitrary.  No  such  distinction,  it  is 
said,  is  recognized  in  Scripture,  or  consistent  with  the  common  prero- 
gatives of  Christians.  It  is  maintained  that,  in  virtue  of  the  universal 
priesthood  of  believers,  all  Christians  have  equal  right  to  preach,  bap- 
tize, and  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Such  was  the  opinion  of 
some  of  the  Fathers,  and  such  is  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  most  emi- 
nent modern  scholars.  It  is  not,  however,  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Church  ;  and  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  The  ministry  is 
properly  an  office,  because  it  is  something  which  cannot  be  assumed  at 
pleasure  by  any  and  every  one.  A  man  must  be  appointed  thereto  by 
some  competent  authority.  It  involves  not  only  the  right,  but  the  ob- 
ligation to  exercise  certain  functions,  or  to  discharge  certain  duties ; 
and  it  confers  certain  powers  or  prerogatives,  which  other  men  are 
bound  to  recognize  and  respect.  Lawyers,  physicians,  merchants,  and 
mechanics,  are  not-  officers.  Any  man  may  be  a  physician  or  merchant. 
No  man  is  bound  to  discharge  the  duties  of  either.  But  judges  and 
magistrates  are  officers.  They  are  appointed  to  the  posts  which  they 
occupy  ;  they  are  bound  to  discharge  its  duties  ;  and  they  are  invested 
with  certain  prerogatives  in  virtue  of  their  appointment.  That  the 
ministry  is  in  this  sense  an  office  is  plain  from  the  numerous  titles 
given  in  the  New  Testament  to  ministers,  which  imply  official  station. 
They  are  not  only  teachers,  but  overseers,  rulers,  governors.  The 
qualifications  for  the  office  are  carefully  laid  down,  and  the  question, 
whether  these  qualifications  are  in  any  case  possessed,  is  not  left  to  the 
decision  of  those  who  aspire  to  the  office,  but  to  the  Church,  through 
her  appointed  organs.  Men  are,  therefore,  said  to  be  called,  ap- 
pointed, or  ordained,  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  by  those  who  have 
authority  thereto.    And  accordingly,  the  people  are  required  to  obey 


DEMISSION  OF  THE  MINISTRY.  347 

those  who  have  the  rule  over  them,  and  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
made  their  overseers. 

But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  office  ?  Is  it  a  temporary  or  a  perma- 
nent one  ?  According  to  one  view,  the  office  of  the  ministry  has  re- 
lation to  one  particular  church,  and  is  dependent  on  that  relation.  A 
man  is  a  husband  in  relation  to  his  own  wife,  and  to  no  other  woman. 
If  legally  separated  from  her,  by  her  death  or  otherwise,  he  ceases  to 
be  a  husband.  A  man  is  a  governor  of  a  particular  State,  he  is  no 
governor  in  relation  to  any  other  commonwealth  ;  and  when  his  term 
of  office  expires,  or  he  resigns  his  post,  he  ceases  to  be  a  governor,  and 
becomes  a  private  citizen.  According  to  this  theory,  minister  and 
pastor  are  convertible  terms.  A  man  is  a  minister  only  in  relation  to 
the  church  which  chooses  him  to  be  its  pastor.  Outside  of  that 
church  he  has  no  official  power  or  authority ;  and  when  his  connec- 
tion with  his  particular  congregation  is  dissolved,  he  becomes  a  lay- 
man. If  elected  by  another  church,  he  is  reordained.  This  is  the 
pure  Independent  theory.  Many  cases  of  such  reordinations  occur  in 
the  early  history  of  the  Puritans  of  New  England.  It  is  very  evident 
that  this  is  an  unscriptural  theory.  All  the  ordinations  specifically 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  i.  e.  all  the  persons  therein  men- 
tioned as  ordained  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  were  thus  ordained, 
not  in  reference  to  any  particular  church,  but  to  the  Church  at  large. 
According  to  this  Independent  theory,  no  man  can  be  ordained  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  heathen ;  and  some  of  its  advocates  are  con- 
sistent enough  to  teach  that  no  provision  is  made  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  the  conversion  of  nations  outside  the  Church.  It  need  not 
be  said  that  this  is  not  the  common  doctrine  of  Christians,  or  that  it 
is  not  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterians.  We  hold  in  common  with  the 
great  mass  of  believers,  that  the  ministry  is  an  office  in  the  Church 
universal,  designed  for  her  enlargement  and  edification ;  that  it  is  not 
dependent  on  the  choice  of  any  particular  congregation,  or  on  the  re- 
lation which  the  minister  may  sustain  as  pastor,  to  any  particular 
people.  It  is  in  this  respect  analogous  to  naval  and  military  offices. 
A  captain  in  the  navy  is  as  much  a  captain  when  on  shore  as  when  he 
is  in  command  of  a  ship  ;  and  he  may  be  transferred  from  one  ship  to 
another.  His  office  is  permanent.  The  Romish  theory  on  this  subject 
is,  that  orders,  or  ordination,  is  a  sacrament ;  and  a  sacrament  is  a  rite 
instituted  by  Christ,  which  has  the  power  of  conferring  grace ;  and 
grace  is  an  internal  spiritual  gift.  In  every  case,  therefore,  of  canoni- 
cal ordination,  there  is  this  peculiar  grace  of  orders  communicated  to 
the  soul.  In  ordination  to  the  priesthood  this  grace  is,  or  includes  su- 
pernatural power,  giving  ability  to  transubstantiate  the  bread  and  wine 
in  the  Eucharist  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  to  remit  sin,  to 


348  CHURCH  POLITY. 

render  the  sacraments  efficacious,  &c,,  &c.  Here,  then,  is  an  internal 
something  constituting  a  man  a  priest,  of  which  he  cannot  divest  him- 
self, and  which  by  no  act  of  man  can  be  taken  from  him.  It  may, 
however,  be  forfeited.  As  baptismal  grace,  including  the  remission  of 
sin  and  the  infusion  of  a  new  principle  of  spiritual  life,  may  be  lost 
by  mortal  sin,  and  can  be  restored  only  by  the  sacrament  of  penance ; 
so  the  grace  of  orders  may  be  lost  by  certain  crimes,  such  as  heresy  or 
schism.  Hence,  in  the  Romish  Church,  a  priest,  when  convicted  of 
such  crime,  is  degraded  before  he  is  delivered  over  to  the  secular  power 
to  be  executed.  This  service  of  degradation,  however,  is  declarative 
rather  than  effective.  It  declares  in  a  solemn  and  official  manner  that 
the  offender  has  forfeited  the  grace  received  at  his  ordination,  and  has 
become  a  layman.  It  is  evident  that  the  ministry,  according  to  this 
theory,  must  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  a  permanent  office.  It  cau  neither 
be  voluntarily  laid  aside,  nor  can  a  man  be  deprived  of  it.  If  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  received  in  a  specific  form,  or  mode  of  manifestation,  in 
ordination,  he  remains,  until  the  condition  occurs  on  which  he  has  re- 
vealed his  purpose  to  withdraw.  If  the  gift  of  prophecy,  or  of  mira- 
cles, or  of  tongues,  were  conferred  on  any  man,  he  could  not  divest 
himself  of  that  gift,  nor  could  he  be  deprived  of  it  by  any  act  of  the 
Church.  It  is  so  with  the  grace  of  orders.  This,  however,  is  not  a 
Protestant  doctrine.  It  is  one  of  the  essential  and  necessary  elements 
of  that  cunningly-devised  system  of  Romanism,  which  is  after  the 
working  of  Satan  with  all  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness. 

Protestants,  however,  also  teach  that  the  office  of  the  ministry  is 
permanent,  though  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  just  stated.  It 
is  permanent,  first,  because  it  is  not  assumed  or  conferred  for  any 
limited  or  definite  time.  And  secondly,  because  the  candidate,  in 
assuming  the  office,  is  understood  to  consecrate  himself  for  life  to  the 
service  of  God  in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  This  is  also  the  light  in 
which  the  Church  regards  the  matter  when  she,  through  her  appro- 
priate organs,  ordains  him  to  the  work.  There  is  nothing,,  however,  in 
the  Protestant,  and  especially  in  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  of  the 
nature  of  the  ministry  or  of  ordination,  to  forbid  the  idea  that  the 
office  itself,  and  not  merely  the  exercise  of  the  office,  may,  for  just 
reasons,  be  laid  aside  or  demitted. 

The  Protestant  doctrine,  as  we  understand  it,  on  this  subject,  is 
this :  First,  that  the  call  of  the  ministry  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Spirit  of  God  is  said  to  dwell  in  all  the  members  of  Christ's  body, 
and  to  each  member,  as  the  apostle  teaches  us,  is  given  a  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit.  1  Cor.  xii.  7.  That  is,  while  the  Spirit  manifests  his 
presence  in  his  enlightening  and  sanctifying  influence,  in  different 
measures,  in  all  the  followers  of  Christ,  he  gives  special  gifts  and  quali- 


DEMISSION  OF  THE  MINISTKY.  349 

fications  to  different  individuals  of  their  number ;  dividing  to  every 
man  severally  as  he  wills.  In  the  Apostolic  Church,  he  gave  to  some 
the  gifts  of  plenary  knowledge  and  infallibility,  and  thus  made  them 
apostles ;  to  others,  the  gift  of  occasional  inspiration,  and  thus  made 
them  prophets ;  to  others,  the  gift  of  teaching,  and  thus  made  them 
the  teachers  or  preachers  of  the  word ;  to  others  again,  the  gift  of  heal- 
ing, of  miracles,  or  of  tongues.  Some  of  these  gifts  we  know,  both  from 
the  New  Testament  and  from  actual  observation,  were  designed  to  be 
confined  to  the  first  age  of  the  Church.  They  have  accordingly  ceased. 
We  have  no  inspired  and  infallible  men — no  workers  of  miracles,  no 
speakers  with  tongues.  In  other  words,  we  have  no  apostles,  nor  pro- 
phets, nor  men  endowed  with  supernatural  power. 

There  are  other  gifts,  however,  which  we  learn  from  Scripture  and 
observation  were  designed  to  be  permanent.  The  Holy  Spirit  confers 
the  gifts  for  the  ministry ;  and  by  thus  conferring  them,  and  exciting 
the  desire  to  exercise  them  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  service  of 
Christ,  thereby  manifests  his  will  that  those  thus  favoured  should  con- 
secrate themselves  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  This  is  the  true, 
divine  call,  to  the  ministry. 

Second :  The  evidence  of  this  call  to  him  that  receives  it,  is  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  inward  gift  and  drawing  of  the  Spirit,  confirmed  by 
those  external  workings  of  providence  which  indicate  the  will  of  God 
as  to  his  vocation.  The  evidence  of  the  Church  is  everything  which 
tends  to  prove  that  the  candidate  has  the  qualifications  for  the  oflice  of 
the  ministry,  and  that  he  is  led  to  seek  it  from  motives  due  to  the  ope- 
ration of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Third :  Ordination  is  the  solemn  expression  of  the  judgment  of  the 
Church,  by  those  appointed  to  deliver  such  judgment,  that  the  candi- 
date is  truly  called  of  God  to  take  part  in  this  ministry,  thereby  au- 
thenticating to  the  people  the  divine  call.  This  authentication,  or 
ordination  is,  under  all  ordinary  circumstances,  the  necessary  condition 
for  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  in  the  Church ;  just  as  the  judgment  of 
the  session  that  the  candidate  for  baptism  or  for  admisssion  to  the 
Lord's  table,  has  the  qualifications  for  Church  membership,  is  the  ne- 
cessary condition  of  Church-fellowship. 

As,  however,  neither  the  candidate  nor  the  Church  is  infallible,  there 
may,  and  doubtless  often  is,  mistake  in  this  matter.  A  man  may  ho- 
nestly believe  that  he  is  called  of  God  to  the  ministry,  when  he  has  never, 
in  fact,  been  thus  called.  The  Presbytery  may  concur  in  this  errone- 
ous judgment.  If  a  mistake  is  made  it  ought  to  be  corrected.  If  both 
the  man  himself  and  the  Presbytery  become  convinced  that  he  never 
was  called  to  the  ministry,  why  should  they  persist  in  asserting  the 
contrary  ?    So  long  as  the  man  clings  to  his  office,  he  thereby  says,  he 


850  CHURCH  POLITY. 

believes  he  is  called  to  it  by  God ;  but  tbis  he  may  be  thoroughly  con- 
vinced is  not  true.  Why  then  should  he  be  required  to  assert  what  he 
knows  to  be  false?  The  presbytery  join  in  this  false  testimony;  nay, 
they  take  upon  themselves  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  falsehood,  if 
they  interpose  their  authority,  and  refuse  to  allow  a  man  to  demit  an 
office  to  which  both  he  and  they  are  convinced  he  never  was  called.  It 
is  not  merely,  therefore,  a  man's  right  to  demit  the  ministry,  if  he  is 
satisfied  God  has  not  called  him  to  the  work ;  but  it  is  his  solemn  duty 
to  do  it.  And  the  presbytery  have  not  only  the  right  to  allow  him  to 
do  it,  but  they  have  no  right  to  prevent  it.  They  cannot  force  a  man 
to  be  a  minister  against  his  will,  and  against  his  conscience ;  much  less 
can  they  righteously  force  him  to  lie  to  the  Church,  and  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  making  him  say  he  is  called,  when  he  knows  that  he  is  not 
called. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  ministry,  or  of  or- 
dination, which  stands  in  the  way  of  the  demission  of  the  sacred  office. 
We  do  not  hold  that  the  judgment  of  the  Church  is  infallible ;  so  that 
it  can  in  no  case  be  recalled  or  reversed.  We  do  not  hold  that  an  in- 
ward gift,  the  grace  of  orders,  is  conferred  in  ordination  so  as  to  be  be- 
yond recall.  Neither  is  there  anything  in  the  ordination  vows,  or  the 
obligations  assumed  by  the  candidate,  to  prevent  his  laying  the  office 
aside.  He  does  indeed  promise  to  devote  himself  for  life  to  the  work 
of  the  ministry.  But  this  promise  is  obviously  conditional.  It  is  con- 
ditioned on  the  possession  of  physical  ability.  If  rendered  paralytic  or 
voiceless,  the  promise  does  not  bind  him.  In  like  manner  it  is  condi- 
tioned on  the  inward  call  of  God.  The  man  believes  that  it  is  the  will 
of  God  that  he  should  be  a  minister ;  and,  on  the  ground  of  that  belief, 
he  promises  to  devote  himself  to  the  work.  If  he  becomes  satisfied  that 
he  never  was  called,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  that 
he  should  preach  the  gospel,  then  the  ground  on  which  the  promise  was 
made  no  longer  exists. 

The  principle  of  demission  is  clearly  recognized  in  our  standards. 
That  is,  it  is  distinctly  recognized  that  a  minister  may  cease  to  be  such, 
and  become  a  layman.  What  is  deposition  but  the  declaration,  on  ju- 
dicial grounds,  on  the  part  of  a  presbytery,  that  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  such?  And  what  is  that  but  a 
reversal  of  the  judgment  pronounced  at  his  ordination?  It  is  saying 
that  the  presbytery  erred  in  deciding  that  the  person  in  question  was 
called  of  God  to  the  ministry;  for  if  he  had  been  thus  called,  it  was 
for  life,  and  no  presbytery  could  take  away  a  permanent  office  con- 
ferred by  God.  The  only  difference  between  deposition  and  demission 
lies  in  the  nature  of  the  evidence  on  which  the  presbytery  reverses  its 
former  judgment     In  the  case  of  deposition,  it  is  some  grave  offence, 


DEMISSION  OF  THE  MINISTRY.  351 

some  heresy  or  crime,  wliich  clearly  proves  that  the  minister  convicted 
of  such  offence  is  not  called  of  God  to  preach  the  gospel.  In  the  case 
of  demission,  it  is  anything,  not  involving  a  moral  or  religious  offence, 
which  satisfies  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the  man  himself,  and  of 
the  presbytery,  or  even  of  the  latter  alone,  that  the  minister  demitting 
his  office,  or  called  upon  to  demit  it,  was  never  called  of  God  to  the 
sacred  office.  Of  course  mere  physical  infirmity,  or  the  weakness  or 
imbecility  of  age,  can  never  be  such  a  proof.  A  minister  or  missiona- 
ry, nay,  Paul  himself,  after  a  life  devoted  to  the  service  of  God,  in  the 
ministry  of  his  Son,  crowned  with  every  manifestation  of  the  divine 
favour,  might  be  superannuated  or  paralytic,  yet  no  one  would  dream 
that  this  was  any  evidence  that  he  had  entered  the  ministry  without  a 
call  from  God,  The  evidence  in  question  must  be  the  opposite  of  the 
evidence  of  a  divine  call,  viz. :  the  want  of  fitness  for  the  office,  the 
want  of  a  desire  to  discharge  its  duties,  the  want  of  success,  and  the 
consequent  inability  to  serve  God  or  the  Church  in  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  All  this  may,  and  in  many  cases  is  apparent,  where  there  is 
every  evidence  of  Christian  character,  and  therefore  where  any  act  of 
discipline  would  be  uncalled  for  and  unjust. 

As  therefore  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  ministerial  office, 
nor  in  the  nature  of  ordination,  nor  in  the  obligations  assumed  by  the 
candidate  when  he  is  ordained,  nor  in  the  infallibility  of  the  presbytery, 
incompatible  with  the  demission  of  the  sacred  office,  it  follows  that  for 
proper  reasons  it  may  be  laid  aside.  In  the  second  place,  as  before  re- 
marked, it  ought,  in  the  case  supposed,  to  be  laid  aside.  To  continue  to 
profess  to  be  called  of  God,  when  we  are  satisfied  that  such  is  not  the 
fact,  and  when  the  presbytery  and  the  Christian  public  are  equally  con- 
vinced on  the  subject,  is  to  profess  a  conscious  untruth.  This  at  first 
was  a  mistake  in  all  concerned ;  but  when  the  mistake  is  discovered 
and  made  apparent,  then  to  persist  in  it,  gives  it  the  character  of  false- 
hood. In  the  third  place,  it  is  highly  desirable  that  those  who  have 
thus  mistaken  their  vocation,  should  be  allowed  to  correct  the  error.  It 
is  not  only  wrong  to  constrain  a  man  against  his  judgment,  will  and 
conscience,  to  retain  the  ministerial  office ;  but  it  cannot  be  done.  The 
office  is  in  fact,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  laid  aside.  Men  once  or- 
dained give  up  their  ministry.  They  not  only  cease  to  exercise  it,  but 
they  virtually  renounce  it.  They  lay  aside  the  title,  they  do  not  at- 
tempt to  discharge  its  duties ;  they  do  not  claim  any  of  its  prerogatives. 
They  devote  themselves  to  some  secular  pursuit,  and  are  merged  in  the 
general  class  of  laymen.  For  this,  in  the  cases  supposed,  they  are  not 
to  blame,  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  justly  censured.  They  are  often 
useful  members  of  society  and  of  the  Church ;  but  they  are  not  minis- 
ters.    Now  if  this  is  done,  and  must  be  done,  it  is  surely  proper  that  it 


352  CHURCH  POLITY. 

should  be  done  regularly ;  that  provision  should  be  made  to  meet  cases 
of  this  kind.  Besides,  it  is  a  great  evil  that  our  Church  courts  should 
be  encumbered  with  nominal  members,  who  are  incapable  of  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  membership.  And  it  is  a  still  greater  evil  that  men 
should  be  allowed  to  sit  in  those  courts  and  exercise  the  powers  of  an 
office,  to  which  all  concerned  are  satisfied  they  have  no  legitimate  call, 
and  the  duties  of  which  they  cannot  fulfil.  Such  ministers  are  not  only 
an  incumbrance  to  our  Church  courts,  disturbing  the  natural  balance 
of  our  system,  but  it  is  a  disgrace  to  the  ministry  and  to  the  Church,  to 
have  men  notoriously  incompetent  (however  worthy  they  be),  and 
who  are  merely  nominal  ministers — men  who  are  laymen  in  their  whole 
spirit  and  pursuits,  designated  and  recognized  as  invested  with  the 
sacred  office.  It  is  best  that  things  should  be  called  by  their  right 
names.  If  a  man  is  not  a  minister  of  the  gospel  (i.  e.  one  who  either 
does  or  has  served  God  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son)  he  should  not  be  so 
designated  or  so  regarded. 

It  is  objected  to  all  this,  that  if  we  make  it  thus  easy  to  get  rid  of 
the  ministry,  less  care  will  be  exercised  in  entering  it.  We  doubt  the 
fact.  The  ministry  in  our  country  and  in  our  Church,  is  not  often 
entered  from  worldly  motives.  It  is  not  sufficiently  attractive  to  the 
mercenary.  It  is  commonly  an  honest  mistake  on  the  part  both  of  the 
candidate  and  of  the  presbytery,  when  men  are  ordained  by  the  Church 
who  are  not  called  of  God.  But  even  if  the  fact  be  admitted  which  the 
objection  assumes,  it  would  be  unwise  to  make  the  ministry  a  cul-de-sac, 
which  whoever  wanders  into  in  the  dark,  must  stay  in  it.  It  would  be 
far  better  to  make  the  egress  from  the  ministry  so  wide  that  all  who 
want  to  leave  it,  or  who  ought  to  leave  it,  may  do  so  with  the  least  pos- 
sible difficulty  or  delay. 

If  our  readers  agree  with  the  principles  above  stated,  they  must  re- 
gard the  overture  submitted  to  the  presbyteries  as  an  illogical,  half- 
way measure.  It  assumes  that  the  office  of  the  ministry  cannot  be  de- 
mit^ed ;  but  that  a  man  may  lay  aside  its  exercise  and  be  divested  of 
its  prerogatives.  It  assumes  that  the  office  is  in  such  a  sense  perma- 
nent that  it  cannot  be  got  rid  of,  except  by  deposition.  But  this  as- 
sumption is  illogical.  It  necessarily  follows  from  the  Protestant  and 
Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the  ministry,  of  ordination,  and  of  the  falli- 
bility of  all  Church  courts,  that  the  office  is  not  permanent  in  any  such 
sense.  That  doctrine  supposes  that  both  the  candidate  and  presbytery 
may  err ;  and  it  supposes  that  the  error  when  discovered  may  be  cor- 
rected. It  is  only  on  the  assumption  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  "  the 
grace  of  orders,"  that  the*  ministry  can  be  regarded  as  in  any  such 
sense  permanent  as  that  it  cannot  be  demitted.  Besides,  deposition  im- 
plies that  the  office  of  the  ministry  is  not  in  such  a  sense  permanent  as 


COMMISSIONS  OF  PEESBYTERIES  AND  SYNODS.  353 

to  be  inconsistent  with  demission.  Deposition  merely  does  for  one 
reason,  what  demission  does  for  another.  Both  reduce  a  minister  to 
the  condition  of  a  layman.  The  one,  therefore,  is  just  as  consistent 
with  the  true  permanency  of  the  office  as  the  other. 

Another  objection  to  the  overture  as  it  now  stands,  is  that  it  under- 
takes to  separate  things  which  in  their  nature  are  inseparable.  If  the 
ministry  is  an  office  of  divine  appointment,  if  men  are  called  of  God  to 
be  ministers,  then  the  obligation  to  discharge  its  duties,  and  the  right 
to  exercise  its  prerogatives,  are  inseparable  from  the  possession  of  the 
office.  If  God  calls  a  man  to  be  a  minister,  wliat  right  have  we  to  say 
he  shall  not  act  as  such  ?  By  allowing  hiiu  to  retain  the  office,  we  say 
he  has  a  divine  call  to  it ;  and  if  so,  he  has  a  divine  right  to  exercise  all 
its  functions.  The  overture,  therefore,  in  our  view,  involves  a  contra- 
diction. It  in  effect  says,  that  a  man  is,  and  is  not  a  minister,  at  the 
same  time ;  that  he  was  mistaken  in  supposing  he  was  called  by  the 
Spirit  to  be  a  minister,  and  nevertheless  he  is  a  minister.  These  are 
contradictory  judgments. 

We  would  greatly  prefer  a  simple  clause  providing  that  whenever 
any  minister,  in  good  standing,  is  fully  satisfied  in  his  own  judgment 
and  conscience,  that  God  has  not  called  him  to  the  ministry,  he  may, 
with  the  consent  of  presbytery,  resign  the  office  ;  and  in  case  the  pres- 
bytery is  satisfied  that  a  minister  has  no  divine  vocation  to  the  minis- 
try, although  he  himself  may  think  otherwise,  they  shall  have  the  right 
(with  the  consent  of  the  Synod,  if  that  be  thought  desirable)  to  cancel 
his  ordination  without  censure,  as  in  deposition  it  is  done  with  censure. 

§  11.    Commissions  of  Presbyteries  and  Synods.  [*] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii.,  cliap.  xi.,  sec.  iv. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp. 
145,  154,] 

The  constitutionality  and  expediency  of  presbyteries  and  synods  ap- 
pointing "Commissions"  of  their  body  to  try  judicial  cases,  was  brought 
before  the  last  General  Assembly,  and  referred,  with  very  little  discus- 
sion to  a  committee  to  report  to  the  present  Assembly.  Dr.  Hodge,  on 
behalf  of  the  committee,  presented  the  following  report : 

"  In  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  for  1846,  p.  210,  is  found 
the  following  resolution,  viz. :  '  Resolved,  That  the  records  of  the  Synod 
of  Virginia  be  approved,  while  in  so  doing  the  Assembly  would  be 
understood  as  expressing  no  opinion  on  the  question  decided  by  the 
synod,  in  reference  to  the  authority  of  the  presbyteries  of  Winchester 
and  Lexington  to  appoint  commissions  in  the  case  alluded  to  in  the 
record  of  the  synod.' 

[*  From  article  on  ''  The  General  Assembly "  /  same  topic.    Princeton  Review, 
1847,  p.  400.] 
23 


354  CHUECH  POLITY. 

"  It  appears  from  tlie  minutes,  p.  216,  that  the  following  resolution 
was  subsequently  offered  and  referred  to  a  committee  consisting  of  Drs. 
Hodge,  Lindsley,  Musgrave,  McFarland,  and  McDowell,  to  report  there- 
on at  the  next  Assembly,  viz. :  '  Eesolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Assembly,  it  is  contrary  to  the  constitution  and  uniform  practice  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  for  any  ecclesiastical  judica- 
tory to  appoint  a  commission  to  determine  judicially  any  case  whatever.' 

"  This  resolution  presents  two  questions  for  consideration,  one  of  prin- 
ciple, the  other  of  fact.  First,  Is  it  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  for  its  judicatories  to  appoint 
commissions  to  decide  judicially  cases  which  may  be  brought  before 
them?  Secondly,  Are  such  appointments  contrary  to  the  uniform 
practice  of  our  Church?  Your  committee  are  constrained  to  answer 
both  these  questions  in  the  negative. 

"  That  such  appointments  are  not  contrary  to  the  constitution,  the 
committee  argue,  1st.  Because  the  power  in  question  is  one  of  the  inhe- 
rent original  powers  of  all  primary  Church  courts.  2d.  Because  there 
is  nothing  in  our  constitution  which  forbids  the  exercise  of  that  right. 

"It  is  important  in  considering  this  subject,  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
constitution  is  not  a  grant  of  powers  to  our  primary  Church  courts,  but 
a  limitation,  by  treaty  and  stipulations,  of  the  exercise  of  those  powers. 
For  example,  a  presbytery  does  not  derive  from  the  constitution  (i.  e. 
from  the  consent  of  other  presbyteries)  its  right  to  ordain ;  but  by 
adopting  the  constitution  it  has  bound  itself  to  exercise  its  inherent 
right  of  ordination  only  under  certain  conditions.  Were  it  not  for  its 
voluntary  contract  with  other  presbyteries,  it  might  ordain  any  man 
who,  in  its  judgment,  had  the  requisite  qualifications  for  the  ministry. 
It  has,  however,  agreed  not  to  ordain  any  candidate  for  that  office, 
who  has  not  studied  theology  for  at  least  two  years;  who  cannot 
read  Greek  apd  Hebrew;  and  who  has  not  had  a  liberal  educa- 
tion. The  same  remark  might  be  made  with  regard  to  other 
cases,  showing  that  the  constitution  does  not  confer  power  on 
our  primary  bodies,  but  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  treaty  binding  and 
guiding  them  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  which  they  derive  from 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  This  being  the  case,  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  determine  whether  the  power  to  act  by  commission  belongs  to 
our  primary  courts  is  to  ascertain  whether  such  power  naturally  belongs 
to  them ;  and  whether,  if  it  does  originally  pertain  to  them,  they  have 
by  adopting  the  constitution  removed  its  exercise. 

"  That  the  power  in  question  does  inhere  in  our  primary  Church 
courts,  may  be  inferred  first,  from  their  nature.  It  is  a  generally  re- 
cognized principle  that  inherent,  as  opposed  to  delegated  powers,  may 
be  exercised  either  by  those  in  whom  they  inhere,  or  by  their  represen- 


-     .     COMMISSIONS  OF  PRESBYTEEIES  AND  SYNODS.  355 

tatives.  The  powers  inherent  in  the  people,  they  may  exercise  them- 
selves, or  delegate  to  those  whom  they  choose  to  act  in  their  stead. 
We  can  see  nothing  in  the  Word  of  God,  nor  in  the  principles  on 
which  such  bodies  are  constituted,  which  would  forbid  any  presbytery 
or  synod,  if  independent  or  untrammelled  by  treaty  stipulations  with 
other  similar  bodies,  delegating  their  powers  to  a  committee  of  their 
own  number  to  act  in  their ^name,  and  subject  to  their  review  and  con- 
trol. Secondly.  We  infer  that  the  power  in  question  does  belong  ori- 
ginally to  primary  Church  courts  from  universal  consent.  It  is  an 
undeniable  fact  that  presbyteries  and  synods,  when  not  constrained  by 
special  enactments,  have  in  all  countries  where  Presbyterianism  has 
existed,  acted  on  the  assumption  that  they  possessed  the  right  of  acting 
by  commissions.  It  is  on  the  principle  that  a  presbytery  may  delegate 
its  powers,  our  presbyteries  are  still  in  the  habit  of  commissioning  one 
or  more  ministers  to  organize  churches,  ordain  elders  and  perform 
other  similar  acts. 

"  If  then  it  be  admitted  that  the  right  to  act  by  commissions  did  be- 
long to  presbyteries  and  synods,  were  it  not  for  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution,  the  question  arises,  whether  the  constitution  does  forbid 
the  exercise  of  this  right. 

"  In  answer  to  this  question  it  may  be  remarked,  that  to  deprive  our 
judicatories  of  an  original  and  important  right,  something  more  than 
mere  implication  is,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  necessary.  No  one  however 
pretends  that  there  is  any  express  prohibition  of  the  exercise  of  the 
power  in  question,  contained  in  the  constitution.  2.  No  fair  inference 
in  favour  of  such  prohibition  can  be  drawn  from  the  mere  silence  of 
the  constitution.  As  the  power  is  not  derived  from  the  constitution  it 
is  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  there  recorded.  As  far  as  we  recol- 
lect, the  Westminster  Directory  is  equally  silent  on  the  subject,  yet  it 
is  admitted  that  under  that  instrument  Church  courts  freely  exercised 
this  power. 

"  3.  Nor  can  it  be  inferred  that  the  constitution  tacitly  prohibits  the 
exercise  of  this  right,  from  the  fact  that  it  always  treats  of  certain  acts 
as  being  the  acts  of  a  presbytery  or  synod.  An  act  does  not  cease  to 
be  a  presbyterial  act  when  performed  by  a  committee  in  the  name  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  presbytery.  Even  the  ordinary  process  of  re- 
viewing records,  is  performed  not  by  the  whole  presbytery  or  synod, 
but  by  a  committee  in  their  name  and  under  their  sanction.  And 
the  executive  acts  of  ordination  and  installation,  when  performed  by 
a  committee  are  still  presbyterial  acts.  Nothing  was  more  common 
in  the  early  portions  of  our  history,  than  for  our  presbyteries  to  or- 
dain by  a  committee.  And  yet  our  fathers  did  not  deny  that  or- 
dination was  a  presbyterial  act.     It  cannot  therefore  be  inferred  from 


356  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  fact  that  the  constitution  recognizes  certain  acts  as  the  acts  of  pres- 
byteries and  synods,  that  those  acts  may  not  be  legitimately  performed 
by  a  commission  appointed  for  that  purpose.  Such  commission  is  by 
delegation,  and  pro  hoc  vice,  the  presbytery  or  synod.  The  body  vir- 
tually resolves  itself  into  a  committee  to  meet  at  a  certain  time  and 
place  for  a  specific  purpose. 

"  On  these  grounds  your  committee  rest  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not 
contrary  to  the  constitution  of  our  Church  that  our  primary  Church 
courts  should  appoint  a  commission  to  determine  judicially  any  case 
that  may  come  before  them. 

"  As  to  the  second  point  embraced  in  the  resolution  under  considera- 
tion, viz :  whether  such  appointments  are  contrary  to  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, 1.  That  it  is  well  known  that  the  original  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  the  united  Synod  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  from  the  original  institution  of  the  first  mentioned  body 
in  1716,  to  the  formation  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1788,  did  each, 
during  their  several  periods  of  existence,  annually  appoint  a  commission 
with  full  synodical  powers.  This  commission  sometimes  consisted  of  a 
definite  number  of  members  named  for  that  purpose,  and  at  others  any 
member  of  the  Synod  who  chose  to  attend  was  recognized  as  a  member. 

"  There  is  therefore  no  principle  better  sanctioned  by  long  continued 
usage  in  our  Church,  than  the  right  of  a  synod  to  act  by  a  commission 
in  adjudicating  any  case  that  may  come  before  them. 

"  2.  This,  however,  is  a  small  part  of  the  evidence  which  bears  on 
this  subject.  Not  only  did  the  judicatories  above  mentioned  annually 
appoint  a  commission  with  full  power  for  general  purposes,  but  the 
original  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  and  the  united  Synod  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia, were  uniformly  in  the  habit  of  appointing  special  committees 
with  full  powers  (i.  e.  commissions)  to  act  in  their  name  and  with 
their  authority,  in  any  matter,  executive  or  judicial.  The  Assembly 
would  be  fatigued  by  the  citation  of  all  the  cases  on  record  bearing 
on  this  subject.     The  following  may  be  deemed  sufiicient : 

"  In  1713  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia for  the  examination  of  Mr.  Witherspoon,  and  if  satisfied  as  to 
his  qualifications,  they  were  authorized  to  proceed  to  his  ordination 
and  settlement.  Records,  p.  32.  In  1714  a  similar  committee  was 
appointed  by  the  presbytery  for  the  examination  and  ordination  of 
Mr.  H.  Evans.  In  1715  two  other  candidates  were  ordained  in  the 
same  manner,  pp.  36,  37.  In  1716,  two  more.  p.  43.  In  all  these, 
and  in  many  similar  cases  subsequently  recorded,  the  committees  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose  were  invested  with  full  presbyterial  powers  to 


COMMISSIONS  OF  PRESBYTERIES  AND  SYNODS.  357 

judge  of  the  qualifications  of  the  candidate,  to  determine  whether  he 
should  be  ordained  or  not,  and  if  they  saw  fit,  actually  to  ordain.  In 
most  cases  the  rejjorts  made  by  them  show  that  they  did  ordain,  in 
others  they  say  that  they  declined  to  proceed  on  account  of  the  incom- 
petency of  the  candidate,  or  for  some  other  sufficient  reason. 

"In  1717  a  committee  was  sent  to  New  Castle,  Delaware,  'to  receive 
and  audit  the  reasons  of  the  people  of  New  Castle  against  the  re- 
moval of  Mr.  Anderson  (their  pastor)  to  New  York,  or  to  any  other 
place.'  And  '  it  was  further  ordered,  that  the  said  committee  do  fully 
determine  in  that  affair.'  p.  47.  The  following  year  they  reported 
that  'they  had  transported  Mr.  Anderson  to  New  York,  having  had 
power  lodged  in  them  by  the  Synod  to  determine  that  afiair.'  p.  49. 

"  In  1723  a  committee  was  appointed  to  act  in  the  name  and  with 
the  full  power  of  the  Synod,  in  a  conference  with  the  Connecticut 
ministers  in  relation  to  certain  difficulties  in  the  congregation  of  New 
York,  arising  out  of  the  interference  of  the  two  bodies,  p.  75. 

"  In  1720  it  was  *  overtured  that  a  committee  be  sent  to  Rehoboth 
with  full  power  from  the  Synod  to  act  in  their  name  and  by  their  au- 
thority in  the  affiiir  between  Mr.  Clement  and  the  people,  and  that 
Mr.  C.  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  until  the  deter- 
mination of  the  committee.'  The  overture  was  carried  in  the  affirma- 
tive, nemine  eontracUcente."  p.  60.  At  that  time  therefore,  there  was 
not  one  member  of  the  body  who  questioned  the  right  of  the  Synod  to 
act  by  committee  in  judicial  cases.  Again,  it  is  said  in  the  Record, 
*  The  Synod  having  received  letters  from  Snowhill,  by  way  of  com- 
plaint against  Mr.  D.  Davis,  have  appointed  Mr.  McNish  (and  six 
others,)  or  any  three  of  them,  to  be  a  committee  to  go  to  Snowhill,  with 
full  power  to  hear,  examine,  and  determine  about  the  complaints  made 
or  to  be  made  against  said  Mr.  Davis.' 

"  in  1722,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  attend  at  Fairfield,  N.  J., 
with  full  power  to  restore  a.  suspended  minister,  unless  they  saw  a  suf- 
ficient reason  to  the  contrary,  p.  71. 

"  In  1724,  a  committee  reported  that  they  had  not  removed  the  sus- 
pension from  Mr.  Walton,  p.  76.  In  1726,  difficulties  having  occurred 
in  the  Church  at  Newark,  N.  J.,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  visit 
that  place  with  full  power  of  the  Synod  in  all  matters  that  may  come 
before  them  in  respect  to  that  congregation,  and  to  bring  an  account  of 
what  they  do  to  the  next  Synod,     p.  83. 

"  In  1727,  a  committee  was  sent  to  New  York  to  accommodate  dif- 
ferences in  the  Church  there,  *  and  to  receive  Mr.  Pemberton  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Synod,  or  not  as  they  should  see  cause.'  p.  85.  In  1731,  a 
committee  was  sent  to  Goshen,  to  hear  and  determine  matters  of  dis- 
pute in  that  congregation,  'with  full  powers.* 


358  CHUECH  POLITY. 

"In  1734,  an  appeal  from  tlie  Presbytery  of  Donegal  was  presented 
to  Synod,  and  by  them  referred  to  a  committee  to  meet  at  Nottingham, 
'  with  full  power  to  hear  said  appeal,  and  to  determine  it  by  authority 
of  Synod,  they  bringing  an  account  of  their  proceedings  therein  to  the 
next  Synod.  And  the  Synod  do  also  empower  the  said-  committee  to 
hear  any  matter  ....  that  shall  be  brought  before  them  by  the  said 
John  Kirkpatrick  and  John  Moor,  (the  appellants,)  with  relation  to  the 
affair  aforesaid,  and  authoritatively  to  determine  the  same ;  appointing 
also  that  if  either  party  do  ajDpeal  from  the  determination  of  the  com- 
mittee, they  shall  enter  their  appeal  immediately,  that  it  may  be  finally 
determined  by  the  next  Synod.'     p.  107. 

"In  1735,  another  appeal  from  the  same  presbytery  was  referred  to 

a  committee  to  meet  at 'and  determine  the  business.'     p.  119. 

In  the  same  year  the  two  presbyteries  of  Philadelphia  and  East  Jersey 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  try  the  case  of  Rev.  Mr.  Morgan,  p. 
130.  In  1735,  a  committee  with  full  powers  was  sent  to  New  York.  p. 
254.  In  1751,  a  committee  was  sent  to  Jamaica,  L.  I.,  with  authority 
to  decide  whether  the  pastor,  Mr.  Bostwick,  should  be  removed  to  New 
York.  p.  206.  In  1759,  an  appeal  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
was  referred  to  a  committee  at  Princeton,  any  seven  of  whom  to  be  a 
quorum  to  try  the  matter,  p.  312.  A  similar  committee  was  sent  to  Ches- 
nut  Level  in  1762.  In  1764,  the  Synod  decided  that  the  censure  inflicted 
by  a  committee  was  inadequate  to  the  crimes  contained  in  their  charge. 
p.  338.  In  1764,  the  Synod  say,  in  reference  to  an  appeal  from  New  Cas- 
tle presbytery, '  As  this  matter  cannot  be  issued  here  we  ajDpoint  (thirteen 
members)  a  committee  to  hear  and  try  the  merits  of  the  case,  and  to 
issue  the  whole  affair,  and  to  take  what  methods  they  may  think  proper 
in  relation  thereto.'  p.  340.  In  1765,  two  appeals  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Donegal  were  presented,  *  and  the  Synod,'  it  is  said, '  considering  the 
impossibility  of  determining  the  said  affairs  at  present,  have  appointed 
a  committee  to  issue  and  determine  both  matters.'  p.  360. 

"In  1766,  a  similar  case  occurred  ;  an  appeal  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Suffolk  was  referred  to  a  committee  'to  try  and  issue  the  whole 
affair.'  p.  360. 

"  From  all  these  cases  it  is  apparent  that  from  the  beginning,  the 
right  has  been  claimed  and  exercised  by  our  primary  courts  of  appoint- 
ing committees  with  full  powers,  (i.  e.  commissions)  to  act  in  their  name 
and  authority,  in  all  kinds  of  cases,  executive  and  judicial." 

"  Though  from  the  altered  circumstances  of  the  Church,  and  the  great 
increase  in  the  number  of  presbyteries,  this  mode  of  action  has  been 
less  necessary  and  therefore  less  common,  since  the  adoption  of  the 
present  constitution  it  has  never  been  renounced,  and,  as  far  as  known 
to  your  committee,  never  condemned  by  the  Assembly.     On  the  con- 


COMMISSIONS  OF  PEESBYTEEIES  AND  SYNODS.  359 

trary,-in  the  remarkable  case  in  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  it  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Assembly  in  1809,  It  is  well  known  that  the  Cumber- 
land Presbytery  had,  for  some  time,  persisted  in  licensing  and  ordain- 
ing men  who  had  not  received  a  liberal  education,  and  who  refused  to 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith.  These  proceedings  were  brought  before 
the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  in  1805,  by  a  review  of  the  records  of  that 
presbytery.  But  as  the  synod  had  not  sufficient  data  on  which  to  act, 
as  the  case  did  not  admit  of  delay,  they  appointed  a  commission  con- 
sisting of  ten  ministers  and  six  elders,  *  vested  with  full  synodical 
powers,  to  confer  with  the  members  of  the  Cumberland  Presbytery,  and 
to  adjudicate  on  their  presbyterial  proceedings.'  Much  doubt  was 
expressed  in  the  Assembly  of  1807,  of  the  regularity  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  commission ;  but  as  far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  letter 
from  the  Assembly  to  the  synod,  the  former  body  did  not  deny  the 
right  of  the  synod  to  appoint  a  commission.  The  Assembly  requested 
the  synod  to  review  their  acts  in  question,  and  demand  that  the  licen- 
tiates of  the  presbytery  should  be  re-examined,  and  in  approving  the 
action  of  the  commission  in  suspending  ministers  without  trial  who 
had  been  irregularly  ordained.  The  synod  having  reviewed  all  pro- 
ceedings in  this  whole  matter,  and  re-affirmed  their  decisions  in  relation 
to  it,  sent  up  their  explanation  and  vindication,  to  the  Assembly ; 
which  did  not  reach  that  body,  however,  until  1809.  The  action  of 
the  synod  was  in  that  year  sustained  without  a  dissenting  voice,  and 
the  Assembly  declared  the  synod  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  whole 
Church  for  the  firmness  and  zeal  with  which  they  had  acted.  See 
chap.  ix.  of  Dr.  Davidson's  instructive  and  interesting  History  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Kentucky." 

"  In  view  therefore  of  the  original  rights  of  our  judicatories,  of  the 
long  continued  practice  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  great  value  of  the 
right,  on  due  occasions,  of  acting  by  commissions,  the  hope  is  respect- 
fully expressed  that  the  Assembly  may  do  nothing  which  may  have 
the  effect  of  calling  that  right  into  question." 

A  motion  was,  in  the  first  instance,  made  to  adopt  this  report.  But 
that  motion  was  subsequently  withdrawn,  with  a  view  to  introduce  a 
resolution  for  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  resolution  referred  by 
the  last  Assembly  to  the  consideration  of  the  committee.  This  was  the 
disposition  of  the  subject  proposed  and  advocated  by  those  who  were 
in  favour  of  the  doctrine  presented  in  the  report.  The  resolution  re- 
ferred by  the  Assembly  of  1846,  declared  it  to  be  contrary  to  the  con- 
stitution and  uniform  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  to  decide  judicially  by  commission  any  case  whatever.  The 
rejection  of  that  resolution,  or  its  indefinite  postponement,  was  a  refusal 
on  the  part  of  the  Assembly  to  deny  this  right  to  our  primary  courts. 


360  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

This  was  all  tlie  friends  of  the  report  wished,  and  the  motion  for  inde- 
finite postjDonement  was  accordingly  made  by  the  chairman  of  the 
committee.  And  this  was  the  disposition  ultimately  made  by  common 
consent.  The  debate  was  interrupted  by  a  motion  for  the  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  whole  subject. 

There  was  no  opportunity  afforded  for  testing  the  real  sense  of  the 
house,  but  we  have  little  doubt  that  a  decided  majority  was  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  that  our  primary  courts  have  the  right  to  act  by  com- 
mission in  any  case  that  may  come  before  them.  The  objections  urged 
against  this  doctrine  resolve  themselves  into  two.  First,  that  the  con- 
stitution makes  no  mention  of  such  a  power.  Secondly,  that  its  exer- 
cise is  liable  to  abuse. 

The  first  of  these  objections  rests  on  the  radically  false  principle, 
combated  in  the  report,  that  our  courts  get  their  powers  from  the  con- 
stitution, a  principle  inconsistent  with  the  essential  doctrines  of  Presby- 
terianism.  We  hold  that  our  courts  get  their  powers  from  the  head  of 
the  Church.  He  has  instituted  a  government.  He  has  determined 
the  nature  and  limits  of  the  powers  to  be  exercised  by  Church  courts. 
A  constitution  is  and  can  be  nothing  but  a  written  agreement  between 
certain  judicatories  consenting  to  act  together,  as  to  the  conditions  on 
which  they  will  exercise  the  powers  given  them  from  above.  Now  ac- 
cording to  our  Confession  of  Faith,  "It  belongeth  to  synods  and  councils, 
ministerially,  to  determine  controversies  of  faith,  and  cases  of  con- 
science ;  to  set  down  rules  and  directions  for  the  better  ordering  of  the 
public  worship  of  God,  and  the  government  of  his  Church ;  to  receive 
complaints  in  cases  of  mal-administration,  and  authoritatively  to  deter- 
mine the  same."  That  is,  by  the  word  of  God,  Church  courts  have 
inherently  certain  legislative,  judicial,  executive  powers.  These  pow- 
ers inhere  in  them,  just  as  by  the  gift  of  God,  similar  powers  inhere  in 
the  community.  And  if  they  belong  to  our  courts,  it  follows  they  can 
exercise  them,  in  any  way  not  inconsistent  with  their  nature  and  de- 
sign, and  the  limitations  of  the  word  of  God,  or  their  own  voluntary 
agreement.  Whether  a  presbyter)'-  shall  ordain  or  install  in  full  ses- 
sion, or  by  a  commission,  is  a  matter  left  entirely  to  its  discretion.  It 
is  responsible  to  God  for  the  exercise  of  this  power,  and  also  to  its  as- 
sociate presbyteries.  But  that  it  has  no  right,  in  itself  considered,  to 
exercise  its  powers  except  in  full  session,  seems  to  us  a  most  extraordi- 
nary assumption.  All  analogy  is  certainly  against  it.  The  people 
delegate  the  powers  which  inhere  in  them,  to  be  exercised  by  represen- 
tatives acting  in  their  name  and  by  their  authority.  So  do  kings,  so 
do  parents.  Why  then  may  not  primary  Church  courts?  All  usage 
is  against  it,  the  usage  of  the  continental  Presbyterian  Church;  the 
usage  of  the  Church  of  Scotland ;  the  usage  of  our  own  Church  from 


COMMISSIONS  OF  PRESBYTERIES  AND  SYNODS.  361 

its  very  foundation,  before  and  since  the  adoption  of  the  present  con- 
stitution. The  Presbytery  of  Hanover,  in  Virginia,  sent  a  commis- 
sion to  ordain  men  in  Kentucky,  and  one  venerable  father  on  tlie  floor 
of  the  Assembly,  was  understood  to  say  that  he  himself  was  ordained 
in  that  way ;  and  another  member  said  that  it  was  not  two  years  since 
the  Presbytery  of  Susquehanna,  acted  in  an  important  case,  by  a  com- 
mission. We  have  therefore.  Scripture,  analogy,  and  usage  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  that  certain  powers  inhere  in  our  primary  Church 
courts,  which  powers  they  may  exercise  either  directly,  or  by  commis- 
sioD,  subject  to  the  limitations  laid  down  in  the  constitution. 

It  was  the  neglect  or  oversight  of  this  last  qualifying  clause  that  gave 
rise  to  most  of  the  objections  to  the  report  urged  under  the  second  head 
mentioned  above.  The  power  was  deemed  liable  to  great  abuse,  be- 
cause it  was  supposed  that  it  was  unlimited ;  that  if  a  presbytery 
or  synod  had  the  right  to  act  by  a  commission,  it  would  have  the  right 
to  delegate  its  whole  power  to  a  single  member.  But  no  such  doctrine 
was  contended  for.  As  the  constitution  requires  that  a  presbytery 
should  consist  of  at  least  three  ministers,  and  a  synod  of  at  least  seven, 
it  would  be  a  direct  violation  of  that  agreement  for  a  presbytery  or 
synod  to  give  presbyterial  or  synodical  powers  to  any  commission  con- 
sisting of  less  than  a  quorum  of  their  own  bodies.  What  would  be  the 
use  of  the  provision  that  not  less  than  three  ministers  can  constitute  a 
presbytery,  if  those  three  could  meet  and  devolve  their  whole  power  upon 
a  single  minister  or  elder?  It  is  obvious  therefore  that  no  commission 
of  a  presbytery,  if  clothed  with  presbyterial  powers  can  consist  of  less 
than  a  quorum  of  presbytery ;  and  no  commission  of  synod  can  consti- 
tutionally consist  of  less  than  a  quorum  of  that  body.  This  single  con- 
sideration is  an  answer  to  the  great  majority  of  the  arguments  drawn 
from  the  supposed  liability  of  the  right  in  question  to  be  abused. 
Another  answer,  however,  is  drawn  from  experience.  The  right  to  act 
by  commission  has  been  exercised  by  all  Presbyterian  Churches,  and 
by  our  own  for  a  long  series  of  years.  There  is  not  a  single  case  upon 
our  records  of  the  abuse  of  this  power.  There  is  not  a  single  instance 
of  complaint  of  injustice,  unfairness,  or  injury  arising  from  this  source. 
The  prediction,  therefore,  of  such  evils,  in  the  face  of  an  opposing  ex- 
perience so  diversified  and  so  long  continued,  cannot  be  entitled  to 
much  consideration.  If  the  principles  of  Presbyterianism  can  be 
learned  from  the  practice  of  all  Presbyterian  Churches,  it  is  most  un- 
reasonable to  denounce  the  right  in  question  as  anti-Presbyterian.  The 
innovation  is  all  on  the  other  side.  The  encroachment  is  on  the  part 
of  the  Assembly,  and  against  the  lower  courts  ;  if  the  ground  should 
be  assumed  by  the  former  that  the  latter  have  not  a  right  which  from 
time  immemorial  they  have  claimed  and  exercised. 


362  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  strict  construction  of  tlie  constitution  for  whicli  some  of  the 
opponents  of  the  report  contended,  would,  if  consistently  carried  out, 
effectually  tie  up  the  hands  of  all  our  Church  courts.  Where  do  we 
find  in  the  constitution  the  explicit  recognition  of  the  right  to  appoint 
stated  clerks,  committees  of  review,  boards  of  education,  of  domestic 
and  foreign  missions ;  directors  of  seminaries,  &c.,  &c.  ?  If  our  Church 
courts  have  no  powers  but  those  laid  down  in  the  constitution,  we  shall 
have  to  give  up  all  the  general  institutions  of  the  Church,  and  many 
of  our  most  familiar  modes  of  action. 

If  the  right  in  question  were  not  one  clearly  recognized  in  the  past 
history  of  our  Church,  and  one  of  real  value,  it  would  not  be  worth 
contending  for.  But  the  single  instance  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky, 
in  the  case  of  the  Cumberland  Presbytery,  shows  that  there  may  be 
cases,  in  which  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  this  right  should 
be  called  into  exercise.  And  cases  are  constantly  occurring,  in  which 
it  is  impossible  to  get  a  large  presbytery,  or  a  whole  synod,  to  devote 
the  time  and  attention  requisite  for  their  due  consideration  and  deci- 
sion. In  such  cases,  a  commission  of  a  third  or  a  fourth  of  the  whole 
body  might  be  sent  to  investigate,  deliberate  and  decide,  with  obvious 
advantage  to  all  the  parties  concerned.  If  the  parties  are  satisfied, 
the  matter  ends  there.  If  not,  an  appeal  is  open  to  the  appointing 
body,  before  whom  the  matter  comes  with  all  the  advantage  of  a  pre- 
vious protracted  and  careful  examination.  In  this  way  the  ends  of 
justice  are  better  answered,  and  the  time  of  our  Church  courts  is  saved. 
We  are,  therefore,  glad  that  the  Assembly  refused,  by  indefinitely  post- 
poning the  whole  subject,  to  sanction  the  resolution  denying  to  our  pri- 
mary courts  the  rights  in  question. 

It  is  proper  to  mention  that  the  committee,  consisting  of  Drs.  Hodge, 
McFarland,  Lindsley,  McDowell,  and  Musgrave,  were,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Dr.  Lindsley,  unanimous  in  sanctioning  the  report  submitted  to 
the  Assembly. 

§  13.    SnperTision  of  Tacant  Churches.    [*] 

{Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  x.,  sec.  viii.-Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  131,  132.] 

The  only  other  point  in  this  report  [f]  which  gave  rise  to  much  de- 
bate, was  that  part  of  the  third  section  of  the  original  report,  which  de- 
clared that  no  candidate  should  be  admitted  to  trials  for  settlement 
in  a  vacant  congregation  independently  of  the  immediate  supervision 
of  the  presbytery.  It  was  urged  on  the  one  hand,  that  it  was  the  right  of 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  Princeton  Renew,  1842,  p.  481.] 

[fReport  in  regard  to  "  Hasty  Ordinations  and  Unauthorized  Demission  of  the 
Ministry,"  adopted  by  the  Assembly  of  1842.] 


SUPERVISION  OF  VACANT  CHURCHES.  363 

the  session  of  a  church  to  supply  its  own  pulpit,  or  to  invite  any  licentiate 
or  minister  in  good  standing  in  our  Church  to  preach  for  them,  with- 
out consulting  the  presbytery ;  that  to  deny  this  right  was  to  introduce 
patronage  into  our  churches,  and  to  interfere  with  the  liberties  of  the 
people.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  maintained  that  the  elders  of  a 
vacant  church  were  bound  to  exercise  the  right  in  question  in  subor- 
dination to  the  presbytery ;  that  they  were  not  an  independent  body, 
but  a  constituent  part  of  an  extended  organization ;  and  consequently 
must  in  all  their  acts  conform  to  the  rules  of  the  Church.  As  a  minis- 
ter and  his  session  are  the  spiritual  rulers  of  a  parish,  and  have  a  right 
to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  exercise  the  office  of  a  teacher  to 
the  people  submitted  to  their  care ;  so  a  presbytery  are  the  spiritual 
rulers  within  their  bounds,  and  have  the  same  right  with  regard  to  all 
the  churches.  The  liberties  of  the  people  are  abundantly  provided  for 
by  our  system.  No  man  can  be  imposed  upon  them  as  a  ruler  without 
their  consent,  or  even  without  their  deliberate  request.  Greater  liberty 
than  this  they  need  not  desire,  and  do  not,  as  Presbyterians,  possess. 

It  was  further  urged  that  the  supervision  of  the  presbytery  over  the 
supply  of  vacant  congregations,  is  expressly  recognized  in  our  form  of 
government,  as  in  chapter  18 ;  and  was  constantly  exercised ;  since 
nothing  was  more  common  than  for  a  vacant  congregation  to  apply  to 
its  presbytery  for  supplies,  or  for  liberty  to  supply  its  own  pulpit  for  a 
definite  period.  The  denial  or  neglect  of  this  supervision,  it  was  con- 
tended, would  be  the  occasion  of  the  greatest  disorders.  It  would  eflPec- 
tually  nullify  all  those  provisions  of  our  constitution  which  give  to  the 
presbytery  authority  in  the  ordination  or  installation  of  pastors.  For 
if  a  man,  whom  a  presbytery  could  not  see  its  way  clear  to  ordain, 
was  allowed,  without  their  consent,  to  preach  within  their  bounds,  gain 
ascendency  over  the  minds  and  affections  of  the  people,  the  presbytery 
would  be  forced,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  to  choose  between  ordaining  a 
man  of  whom  they  disapproved,  and  the  division  or  secession  of  the 
church  to  which  he  preached.  These  were  evils  of  frequent  occurrence, 
and  arose  from  the  neglect  of  the  plain  principles  of  our  standards. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

^  1.    Coiuiuissionei*s. 

\_Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xxii.,  sects,  i.and  ii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  463,  464,  466-470.] 
a.  Tlie  Assembly  Judges  the  Qualifications  of  its  Members.  [*] 

The  second  position  [taken  in  the  "  Review  of  Leading  Measures  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837,  by  a  member  of  the  New  York  bar,"]  is,  that 
the  Assembly  has  no  right  to  decide  whether  a  commissioner  is  enti- 
tled to  his  seat  or  not;  that  is,  it  has  no  right  to  judge  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  its  own  members.  Does  this  mean  that  the  Assembly  has  no 
right  to  decide  whether  a  delegate  comes  from  a  body  qualified  to  send 
him,  but  is  bound  to  admit  him  to  a  seat,  no  matter  where  he  comes 
from  ?  This  is  surely  too  absurd  to  be  what  is  meant ;  and  yet  this  is 
all  the  judging  of  qualification  involved  in  the  present  case.  It  is 
not  a  question  whether  a  commissioner  was  duly  elected ;  or  whether 
he  himself  is  what  he  purports  to  be,  a  minister  or  elder.  The  ques- 
tion is  not  about  his  personal  qualification,  but  about  the  right  of  the 
body  giving  the  commission.  Has  the  Assembly  no  authority  to  de- 
cide this  point  ?  Must  it  allow  any  and  every  man,  from  Europe, 
Asia,  Africa  or  America,  who  may  come  with  a  commission,  to  take 
his  seat  as  a  matter  of  course  ?  If  a  man  were  to  rise  and  say  to  the 
moderator,  Sir,  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  commission  from  the  Presbytery 
of  North  Africa ;  does  the  Assembly  forfeit  its  existence  by  telling 
him,  Sir,  as  we  know  no  such  presbytery,  we  cannot  receive  you  ?  A 
cause  must  surely  be  desjierate  that  requires  such  a  right  to  be  denied 
to  any  representative  body  upon  earth. 

It  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Assembly  that  it  should  have 
the  right  to  decide  whether  tlie  body  giving  the  commission  has  autho- 
rity to  do  so  or  not.  And  from  this  decision  there  is  no  appeal,  but  to 
the  churches.  Should  they  disapprove  of  the  decision,  they  will  send 
up  delegates  the  next  year  who  Avill  reverse  it.  If  they  sanction  it, 
the  aggrieved  party  has  no  resource  but  submission,  or  revolution. 

[*  From  article  reviewing  pamphlet  named  above ;  Princeton  Beview,  1838, 
p.  490.] 

364 


COMMISSIONERS  TO  THE  ASSEMBLY.  365 

We  must  not  be  understood,  however,  as  admitting  that  the  Assem- 
bly has  no  right  to  judge  of  the  qualification  of  delegates  from  presby- 
teries in  good  standing.  This  Reviewer  says,  that  the  commission  is 
the  only  siifficient  evidence  of  the  requisite  qualification  of  the  dele- 
gate, and  must,  in  all  cases,  be  admitted,  as  it  must  be  correct,  unless 
the  oflficers  of  the  presbytery  certify  to  "  palpable  lies."  We  think 
this  language  very  incorrect.  He  forgets  how  often  Congrega- 
tional laymen  have  appeared  in  the  Assembly  bearing  commissions 
declaring  them  to  be  ruling  elders.  This  is  certainly  very  wrong,  but 
we  should  not  like  to  adopt  the  language  of  this  writer  on  the  subject. 
Should  a  man  with  such  a  commission,  rise  and  tell  the  Assembly  that 
he  was  not  an  elder,  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  right  of  that  body 
to  say  to  him,  then  you  are  not  entitled  to  a  seat  here.  This  question, 
however,  except  in  the  form  stated  above,  is  not  involved  in  the  present 
case ;  and  we  therefore  dismiss  it. 

b.  Disputed  Elections.  [*] 

The  committee  of  elections  reported  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  David 
M.  Smith,  that  it  appeared  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  committee,  that 
the  Presbytery  of  Columbia  failed  to  form  a  quorum  at  the  time  ap- 
pointed for  their  stated  spring  meeting ;  that  there  were  present  two 
ministers,  and  ruling  elders  from  a  majority  of  the  churches;  that  those 
present  requested  the  Assembly  to  receive  Mr.  Smith  as  their  commis- 
sioner, in  which  request  two  of  the  absent  ministers  have  expressed 
their  concurrence  in  writing ;  and  that  it  is  believed  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Smith  would  have  been  unanimous  had  the  presbytery  formed 
a  quorum.  In  view  of  these  facts  the  Assembly  decided  that  Mr. 
Smith  could  not,  agreeably  to  the  constitution,  be  admitted  to  a  seat. 

On  the  one  hand,  it  was  urged  that  the  presbytery,  being  a  permanent 
body,  might  express  its  will,  if  not  regularly  as  to  form,  at  least  sub- 
stantially and  effectively,  even  when  not  in  session ;  that  as  the  will  of 
the  presbytery  constituted  the  essence  of  a  commission,  we  have  in  the 
present  case  all  that  is  essential ;  and  that  the  reception  of  Mr.  Smith 
could  afford  no  precedent  for  the  reception  of  commissioners  when  the 
will  of  the  presbytery  appointing  them  was  not  satisfactorily  known. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  contended,  that  although  a  presbytery  is  a 
permanent  body,  it  can  only  act  when  in  session  ;  that  the  assent  of  the 
several  members  of  our  national  congress  to  any  legislative  measure 
would  have  no  force,  unless  that  assent  was  given  when  the  body  was 
regularly  convened ;  that  the  Assembly  had  no  authority  to  set  aside 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  same  topic ;  Princeton  Review,  1843, 
p.  408.] 


366  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

the  express  prescriptions  of  the  constitution,  and  that  all  precedents 
which  violate  important  principles  are  dangerous. 

c.  Irregular  Commissions.  [*] 

As  usual,  several  delegates  appeared  without  the  prescribed  docu- 
mentary evidence  of  their  election.  These  cases  are  recorded,  as  they 
will  have  the  force  of  precedents,  whatever  may  be  said  to  the  con- 
trary. 

***  ***** 

There  are  always  two  ways  of  looking  at  such  cases.  Some  men  are 
disposed  to  go  by  the  letter,  and  others  by  the  spirit  of  the  law.  It  is 
the  will  of  the  presbytery  duly  expressed  and  authenticated,  that  gives 
a  delegate  a  right  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  Assembly.  The  book  pre- 
scribes one  definite  mode  in  which  the  will  of  the  presbytery  is  to  be 
made  known.  The  strict  legal  right  under  the  book,  therefore,  can 
pertain  to  those  only  who  have  commissions  regularly  executed.  A 
will  is  no  will  in  law,  unless  executed  in  the  prescribed  form ;  but  it  has 
full  force  on  the  conscience,  if  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  of  any  kind 
that  it  is  the  real  will  of  the  testator.  Now,  as  our  courts  are  not  courts 
of  law,  but  moral  tribunals,  representing  the  animus  of  the  Church,  we 
think  it  is  clearly  obligatory  to  receive  as  members  those  whom  we,  in 
our  conscience,  believe  the  presbyteries  will  to  be  members. 

d.  Case  of  an  Elder  who  had  ceased  to  act.  [f  ] 

Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  house  a  question  arose  involving 
the  right  of  Dr.  Freeman  Edson,  a  ruling  elder  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Rochester,  to  a  seat  in  the  Assembly.  The  case  was  brought  up  by 
an  overture  from  the  first  Presbyterian  Church  in  Wheatland,  E".  Y. 
This  communication  stated  that  that  church  had  adopted  the  plan  of 
annual  election  of  elders ;  that  Dr.  Edson's  term  of  service  having  ex- 
pired, he  was  not  re-elected  (being  "  unacceptable  to  the  church ;")  and 
that  the  Presbytery  of  Rochester  though  apprized  of  these  facts,  ap- 
pointed him  a  commissioner  to  the  General  Assembly.  The  points  dis- 
puted were :  Is  Dr.  Edson  a  ruling  member  of  the  Church  ?  and,  if 
this  be  admitted,  had  he  a  right  under  these  circumstances,  to  a  seat 
in  the  house  ?  The  committee  to  which  the  case  was  referred,  reported 
in  the  negative  on  both  these  points,  asserting  that  the  election  of  an 
elder  for  a  limited  time  was  invalid ;  and  that  Dr.  Edson  having  ceased 
to  act  as  an  elder,  because  unacceptable  to  the  Church,  was  not  eligible 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  same  topic;  Princeton  Review,  1853, 
p.  451.] 

[f  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  /"  topic ;  "  Right  of  Dr.  Edson  to  his 
seat;"  Princeton  Review,  1835,  p.  443.] 


COMMISSIONEES  TO  THE  ASSEMBLY.  367 

as  a  commissioner.  This  report  after  debate  was  re-committed  to  the 
same  committee,  Drs.  Ely  and  Junkin  being  added  to  tlieir  number. 
The  second  report  of  the  committee  admitted  the  validity  of  Dr.  Edson's 
election  and  ordination  as  an  elder,  but  denied  his  right  to  a  seat, 
because  he  was  not  an  acting  elder  in  the  congregation  to  which  he 
belonged.  Dr.  Ely,  as  the  minority  of  the  committee,  presented  a 
counter  report. 

The  house  seems  very  soon  to  have  arrived  at  unanimity  on  the  first 
point,  viz. :  that  Dr.  Edson  having  been  elected  and  ordained  as  a  ruling 
elder,  he  was  to  be  recognized  as  such,  and  that  neither  the  irregularity 
of  his  election,  nor  the  fact  of  his  having  ceased  to  exercise  his  office 
in  a  particular  church  could  invalidate  his  ordination.  On  the  second 
point,  viz. :  the  right  of  a  man  who  is  not  an  acting  elder  in  some  con- 
gregation to  a  seat  in  the  Assembly,  the  debate  was  more  protracted. 
It  was  argued  in  defence  of  this  right,  1.  That  ceasing  to  act  as  an 
elder  in  any  particular  congregation  could  not  deprive  a  man  of  the 
other  functions  of  his  office.  What  is  an  elder  under  our  constitution, 
but  a  man  entitled  to  rule,  when  requested,  as  a  member  of  a  session, 
or  when  appointed,  as  a  member  of  presbytery,  synod  or  General 
Assembly  ?  His  not  having  been  invited  to  rule  in  a  session  cannot 
invalidate  his  right  to  rule,  when  properly  called  upon,  in  other  judica- 
tories. The  right  to  rule  is  incident  to  his  eldership  and  must  continue 
as  long  as  the  office  continues.  2.  That  this  principle  was  sanctioned 
by  precedent ;  elders  who  had  ceased  to  act  as  such  having  often  been 
admitted  to  a  seat  in  the  Assembly.  3.  That  it  would  have  all  the  in- 
justice of  an  ex  post  facto  law  now  to  deprive  a  presbytery  of  one  of  its 
representatives  on  this  ground.  4.  That  this  rule,  if  applicable  to 
elders,  must  be  applied  also  to  ministers,  and  lead  to  the  exclusion  from 
the  house  of  all  ministers  who  were  not  pastors. 

On  the  other  side  it  was  argued,  1.  That  elders  are  representatives 
of  the  people,  and  that  sending  up  elders  who  are  not  rulers  in  some 
congregation,  is  divesting  the  lay  delegation  of  its  character  as  a  rep- 
resentation of  the  people.  2.  That  the  perpetuity  of  the  office  of  an 
elder  only  means  that  a  man  once  ordained  as  an  elder  may  be  recalled 
to  the  eldership  in  the  same  or  another  congregation  without  being 
reordained.  3.  That  the  cases  of  ministers  and  elders  are  not  parallel, 
inasmuch  as  the  former,  although  they  cannot  become  pastors  without 
the  consent  of  the  people,  may  yet,  according  to  our  system,  be  ordained 
and  made  members  of  a  presbytery,  without  any  previous  election  to  a 
particular  charge.  After  several  protracted  sessions,  the  debate  was 
finally  terminated  by  Dr.  Miller  proposing  the  following  substitute  for 
the  committee's  report, which  substitute  was  adopted  by  a  nearly  unani- 
mous vote : 


368  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  overture  No.  1,  a  communication  from 
the  session  of  Wheatland  congregation,  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of  Free- 
man Edson  as  a  commissioner  to  this  Assembly,  beg  leave  to  present  the  following 
report,  viz..  Agreeably  to  the  constitution  of  our  Church  the  office  of  ruling  elder 
is  perpetual,  (see  Foi-m  of  Gov.  ch.  13.  ^  6.)  and  cannot  be  laid  aside  by  the  will  of 
the  individual  called  to  that  office,  nor  can  any  congregation  form  rules  which 
would  make  it  lawful  for  any  one  to  lay  it  aside.  Your  committee  are  of  opinion 
that  the  mode  of  electing  elders  in  the  congregation  of  "Wheatland  for  a  term  of 
years,  was  irregular,  and  ought  in  future  to  be  abandoned ;  but  cannot  invalidate 
the  ordination  of  persons  thus  elected  and  ordained  to  the  office  of  ruling  elder. 

And  whereas  it  appears  that  Mr.  Freeman  Edson  was  once  elected  to  the  office 
of  ruling  elder  in  the  church  of  Wheatland,  and  was  regularly  set  apart  to  that 
office;  whereas  there  seems  to  be  some  material  diversity  of  views  between  the 
Presbytery  of  Rochester  and  the  Church  session  to  which  Mr.  Edson  once  be- 
longed, as  to  the  manner  in  which,  and  the  principle  on  which  he  ceased  to  be  an 
acting  elder  in  the  said  church,  into  which  the  Assembly  have  no  opportunity  at 
present  of  regularly  examining,  and  whereas  the  presbytery,  with  a  distinct  know- 
ledge, as  is  alleged,  of  all  the  circumstances  attending  the  case,  gave  Mr.  Edson  a 
regular  commission  as  a  ruling  elder  to  this  General  Assembly ;  therefore  Resolved, 
That  he  retain  his  seat  as  a  member  of  the  Assembly. 

e.   Commissioners  Excluded  Pending  Investigation.  [*] 
\_Form  of  Government,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  vii. — Digest  of  1873,  pp.  332,  525.] 

Chap.  12,  §  7,  of  the  Form  of  Government  reads  :  "The  General 
Assembly  shall  meet  at  least  once  a  year.  On  the  day  appointed  for 
the  purpose,  the  moderator  of  the  last  Assembly,  if  present,  shall  open 
the  meeting  with  a  sermon,  and  preside  until  a  new  moderator  be 
chosen.  No  commissioner  shall  have  a  right  to  deliberate  or  vote  in 
the  Assembly  until  his  name  shall  have  been  enrolled  by  the  clerk,  and 
his  commission  examined  and  filed  among  the  papers  of  the  Assembly." 
In  order  then  to  a  proper  organization,  it  is  necessary  that  the  mode- 
rator of  the  last  Assembly,  if  present,  should  preside,  until  a  new  mod- 
erator is  appointed  ;  and  secondly,  that  the  commissions  of  the  dele- 
gates should  be  examined  and  their  names  enrolled  by  the  clerk.  The 
constitution  formerly  directed  that  the  commissions  should  "  be  pub- 
licly read  ;"  but  in  1827  the  presbyteries  sanctioned  the  striking  out 
of  those  words,  and  the  insertion  of  the  word  "  examined  "  in  their 
place.  It  was  then  adopted  as  a  standing  rule  that  the  moderator 
should,  immediately  after  the  house  was  constituted  with  prayer,  ap- 
point a  committee  of  commissions,  to  whom  the  commissions  were  to 
be  delivered  ;  and  the  Assembly  was  then  to  have  a  recess  to  allow  the 
committee  time  to  perform  this  duty  and  to  make  out  the  roll  See  p. 
40  of  the  Min.  for  1826.     In  the  year  1829,  however,  it  was  resolved 

[*From  Article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  ;"  PrinceUm  Review,  1838,  p.  491.] 


COMMISSIONEES  TO  THE  ASSEMBLY.  369 

that  the  permanent  and  stated  clerks  be  a  standing  committee  of  com- 
missions, to  whom  the  commissions  were  to  be  delivered  for  examina- 
tion before  the  opening  of  the  Assembly.  See  Min.  for  1829,  p.  384. 
These  clerks  are  therefore  entrusted  by  the  constitution,  by  the  stand- 
ing rules,  and  the  uniform  practice  of  the  house,  with  the  formation  of 
the  roU.  They  are  to  report  the  names  of  those  whose  commissions  are 
unobjectionable,  who  "  immediately  take  their  seats  as  members  ;"  and 
they  must  further  report  on  those  commissions  which  are  "  materially 
incorrect "  or  "  otherwise  objectionable."  See  Min.  for  1826,  p.  39. 
The  house  is  then  to  determine,  whether  the  persons  bearing  such  com- 
missions are  entitled  to  their  seats  or  not.  It  was  therefore  in  obe- 
dience to  the  constitution  that  Dr.  Elliott,  the  moderator  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  1837,  took  the  chair,  and  presided  until  a  new  moderator  was 
chosen.  He  decided  with  obvious  propriety  that  the  first  business  was 
the  report  of  the  standing  committee  of  commissions  on  the  roll.  This 
decision  was  submitted  to.  The  regular  course  of  proceeding  was  con- 
tinued by  the  call,  on  the  part  of  the  moderator,  for  any  other  commis- 
sions which  might  be  in  the  house.  These  were  to  be  handed  to  the 
committee,  examined,  and  if  found  regular,  the  delegates  presenting 
them  were  to  be  enrolled,  and  take  their  seats.  "SThen  this  was  done, 
and  not  before,  those  commissions  which  were  incorrect,  or  on  any 
ground  objectionable,  were  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  the 
house  were  to  decide  whether  those  who  bore  them  were  entitled  to  a 
seat  or  not.  This  is  not  only  the  uniform  and  constitutional  mode  of 
proceeding,  but  it  is  obviously  proper  and  necessary.  Until  the  roU  is 
so  far  completed  as  to  include  the  names  of  all  the  delegates  present 
whose  commissions  are  unquestioned,  there  is  no  house  legally  consti- 
tuted ;  those  who  have  a  right  to  deliberate  and  vote  are  not  legally 
ascertained.  L  ntil  this  process  therefore  was  gone  through  with,  the 
claims  of  those  whose  commissions  had  been  rejected  by  the  clerks  could 
not  be  legally  considered  or  decided  upon.  It  was  right  then,  when 
the  moderator  called  for  commissions,  for  Dr.  Mason  to  rise  and  pre- 
sent those  which  he  actually  ofiered  ;  and  it  was  right  in  Mr.  Squire 
to  present  his  own.  It  was  however  obviously  correct,  on  the  part  of 
the  moderator,  to  say  to  these  gentlemen,  that  as  the  clerks  have  re- 
jected these  commissions,  the  question  whether  they  are  to  be  received 
or  not  cannot  be  submitted  to  the  house,  until  the  house  be  ascertained ; 
until  it  is  known  who  are  entitled  to  deliberate  and  vote  upon  the 
question. 


However  improper  the   conduct  of  the  clerks  may  have  been,  the 
house  was  not  responsible  for  it  until  they  sanctioned  it.     The  Assem- 
24 


370  CHURCH  POLITY. 

bly  had  no  official  information  of  the  ground  of  the  rejection.  They 
might  have  disapproved  of  it,  and  admitted  the  commissioners  to  their 
seats.  The  decision  of  the  clerks  is  not  the  decision  of  the  house ;  it 
merely  suspends  the  right  of  the  member  until  the  house  has  decided 
on  his  claim. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  view  of  the  case  gives  the  clerks  a  very  dan- 
gerous power.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  objection,  that  it  is  a 
power  given  by  the  constitution ;  and  that  it  is  one  which  they  have 
always  been  permitted  to  exercise.  Every  year  there  are  commission- 
ers whose  names  the  clerks  refuse  to  enroll ;  and  their  decision  is  con- 
sidered final  until  the  house  has  considered  and  determined  on  the  sub- 
ject. Besides,  this  power  is  guarded  from  abuse,  as  far  as  the  case 
admits  of  it.  From  the  decision  of  the  clerk,  refusing  to  enroll  a  mem- 
ber, an  appeal  lies  to  the  Assembly ;  and  if  the  Assembly  refuse  to 
receive  him,  there  is,  in  most  cases,  no  redress.  If  the  ground  of  this 
refusal  be  the  irregularity  of  the  commission,  the  presbytery  suffers 
from  the  negligence  of  its  officers.  If  the  ground  is  the  want  of  proper 
authority  in  the  body  giving  the  commission,  there  is  a  further  appeal 
to  the  churches ;  or  it  may  be,  to  the  civil  courts. 

It  is  further  objected  that  the  right  "of  a  commissioner  to  deliberate 
and  vote  was  perfect  the  moment  he  presented  his  commision  to  the 
clerk  for  the  purpose  of  having  his  name  enrolled ; "  and  the  decision 
of  the  supreme  court  in  the  case  of  Marhury  vs.  Madison  is  appealed 
to  in  support  of  this  position. 

"We  deny,  however,  the  position  itself.  It  matters  not  how  the  gen- 
eral principle  on  which  it  is  founded  may  be  decided ;  our  constitution 
declares  that  the  presentation  of  the  commission  is  not  enough.  Be- 
fore a  delegate  can  deliberate  and  vote,  his  name  must  be  enrolled  by 
the  clerk ;  until  this  is  done,  the  right,  however  perfect  it  may  be,  is 
not  legally  ascertained  or  established. 

/.   Reduction  of  Representation.  [*] 

{Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  ii.— Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  211,  212.] 

The  propriety  of  altering  the  ratio  of  representation,  so  as  to  reduce 
the  number  of  delegates  forming  the  General  Assembly,  has  been  agita- 
ted for  some  time,  and  during  the  last  year  it  has  been  freely  discussed 
in  our  periodicals.  The  subject  was  brought  before  the  Assembly  by 
memorials  from  the  Presbyteries  of  Greenbrier  and  Western  District, 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assscmbly ;''  same  topic;  Princeton  Review, 
1847,  p.  397.] 


COMMISSIONERS  TO  THE  ASSEMBLY.  371 

asking  the  Assembly  to  overture  to  the  presbyteries  the  expediency  of 
reducing  the  ratio  of  representation ;  and  also  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Zanesville,  proposing  to  adopt  the  plan  of  synodical  instead  of  pres- 
byterial  delegations.  The  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  returned 
these  memorials  to  the  house,  recommending  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted,  viz : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient  to  refer  to  the  presbyteries  any  measure, 
having  for  ita  object  the  alteration  of  the  existing  ratio  of  representation." 

From  the  small  degree  of  interest  excited  by  this  subject  in  the 
Assembly,  and  from  the  strength  of  the  vote  on  its  rejection,  we  are 
led  to  infer  that  only  a  few  individuals  in  our  Church  sympathize 
with  the  agitation  kept  up  in  the  papers  during  the  last  year. 
There  appear  to  be  three  principal  reasons  for  desiring  the  proposed 
change. 

1.  It  is  urged  that  our  General  Assembly,  as  now  constituted,  is 
too  large  for  the  transaction  of  business  in  a  way  at  once  deliberate 
and  expeditious.  In  an  Assembly  composed  of  so  many  individuals 
trained  to  public  speaking,  there  will  always  be  a  large  number  anx- 
ious to  deliver  their  vieAvs  on  every  leading  question.  If  all  who  wish 
to  speak  are  fully  heard,  it  consumes  an  inordinate  amount  of  time ; 
and  if  the  liberty  of  speech  is  restricted,  it  leads  to  confusion  and  dis- 
satisfaction. And  besides,  the  time  of  the  house  is  often  taken  up  by 
speeches  on  unimportant  questions,  while  the  real  business  is  left  to 
be  hurried  through,  in  the  closing  hours  of  the  session,  with  a  pre- 
cipitancy which  forbids  deliberation,  and  endangers  the  wisdom  of  the 
decisions. 

These  are  doubtless  real  evils ;  but  it  is  urged  in  reply,  that  the  pro- 
posed measure  would  have  no  tendency  to  obviate  or  abate  them.  All 
the  experience  of  deliberative  bodies  goes  to  show  that  no  reduc- 
tion in  the  number  of  members  would  have  the  effect  of  diminishing 
the  amount  of  speaking,  unless  it  were  carried  to  a  point  that  would 
entirely  defeat  the  whole  principle  of  representation  in  the  Assembly, 
Upon  every  question  about  which  there  is  a  diversity  of  views  at  all, 
there  will  be  found  in  every  such  body,  however  small  it  might  be 
made,  persons  representing  every  shade  of  opinion,  and  therefore  anx- 
ious to  express  their  opinions.  Debates  are  terminated,  not  by  the 
exhaustion  of  speakers,  but  the  exhaustion  of  opinions  and  arguments 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  exhaustion  of  patience  on  the  other.  Now 
experience  proves  that  this  exhaustion  takes  place  sooner  in  a 
very  large  body,  than  in  a  moderately  small  one.  The  speaking  in 
the  former  case,  being  mostly  confined  to  a  few  of  the  ablest  members 
of  the  body,  is  soon  done  up,  and  the  majority  refuses  to  hear  any 


372  CHURCH  POLITY. 

more.  Hence  there  is  less  speaking  in  the  British  House  of  Commons, 
made  up  of  more  than  six  hundred  members,  upon  great  public  ques- 
tions, than  there  would  be  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  any  State 
in  this  Union,  composed  of  one-sixth  of  the  number. 

The  evils  arising  from  the  undue  consumption  of  time  by  speeches 
seem  to  be  inherent  and  incurable ;  at  least  they  are  incurable  by  any 
reduction  of  representation  compatible  with  the  character  of  the  As- 
sembly. 

2.  A  second  and  more  plausible  argument  for  the  proposed  measure, 
is  drawn  from  the  expense  of  assembling  so  large  a  body  from  every 
part  of  the  United  States. 


And  it  happens,  further,  from  the  necessities  of  the  case,  that  this 
tax  falls  heaviest  upon  the  remote  and  less  wealthy  parts  of  the  Church. 

That  this  is  felt  to  be  a  severe  grievance  is  manifest,  from  the 
warmth  of  the  debate  which  sprang  up  incidentally,  about  the  distri- 
bution of  the  monies  collected  and  reported  for  the  Commissioner's 
Fund.  It  appears  that  some  of  the  richer  presbyteries  first  pay  the 
expenses  of  their  delegates,  and  merely  transfer  any  balance  that  may 
remain  to  the  general  fund.  The  effect  of  this,  of  course,  is  to  dimin- 
ish the  dividend  available  for  the  other  members.  Cases  of  difficulty 
and  hardship,  and  even  injustice  are  liable  to  arise  out  of  this  arrange- 
ment. But  the  obvious  answer  to  all  this,  as  an  argument  for  reducing 
the  delegation  is,  that  in  the  first  place,  these  evils  may  easily  be  cured 
by  more  ample  and  equal  provision  on  the  part  of  the  Church  at  large, 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  those  whom  she  delegates  to  transact  her  busi- 
ness ;  and  in  the  second  place,  that  they  would  not  be  met  by  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  delegation.  The  most  natural  result  of  this  measure  would 
be,  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  amount  of  the  contributions  to  the 
fund.  If  any  one  will  cast  his  eye  over  the  statistical  table,  he  will  see 
at  once,  that  the  contributions  to  this  fund  are  graduated  not  at  all  by 
the  means  of  the  churches,  but  simply  by  their  estimate  of  its  necessi- 
ties. The  present  inadequacy  of  this  fund  ought  to  be  held  up  before 
the  churches  until  it  is  seen  and  felt ;  and  no  one  can  doubt  that  there 
is  abundant  means  to  supply  the  deficiency.  The  way  to  remedy  the 
evil,  is  not  by  discussions  and  resolutions  in  the  Assembly,  but  by 
spreading  information,  and  calling  to  it  the  attention  of  the  churches. 

If  the  question  be  whether  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  present  del- 
egation to  the  Assembly  are  wisely  laid  out,  or  in  other  words,  whether 
it  is  worth  to  the  Church  what  it  costs,  we  take  for  granted,  no  one 
would  hesitate  to  give  an  affirmative  answer.  For  in  the  first  place  it 
is  clear  that  the  contributions  for  this  purpose,  do  not,  in  the  least,  di- 


MANNEK  OF  CONDUCTING  BUSINESS  IN  THE  ASSEMBLY.      373 

minisli  those  made  for  benevolent  purposes,  or  other  ecclesiastical 
objects.  This  has  been  settled  long  ago  in  the  experience  of  the 
Church.  And  in  the  second  place,  the  obvious  advantages  arising 
from  the  association  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly,  and  the  imjires- 
sions  received  from  the  various  exercises  and  doings  of  the  body,  im- 
measurably outweigh  the  comparatively  trifling  expense  of  its  annual 
assemblage. 

3.  The  third  argument  for  the  reduction  of  the  Assembly  is  that  it 
vacates  unnecessarily  for  several  weeks,  so  many  pulpits.  To  this  it 
may  be  answered,  1.  That  most  of  the  pulpits  are  not  necessarily,  or  in 
fact,  vacant  at  least  for  the  whole  time.  In  almost  every  place  some 
supplies  can  be  procured  in  the  absence  of  the  pastor,  either  by  licen- 
tiates, or  unemployed  or  transient  ministers.  2.  It  is  often  a  great  re- 
lief to  the  minister  to  escape  for  a  little  while  from  the  steady  pressure 
of  pastoral  care  and  labor,  to  recruit  his  health,  unbend  his  mind,  and 
refresh  his  spirits  by  pleasant  intercourse  with  his  brethren.  And,  of 
course,  the  people  also  get  the  full  benefit  of  this  invigorating  process, 
on  the  part  of  their  pastor.  3.  Even  if  there  were  no  incidental  consi- 
derations of  this  sort,  the  temporary  vacancy  of  a  few  churches  would 
be  nothing,  in  comparison  with  the  advantages  arising  from  the  great- 
er wisdom  and  weight  of  the  Assembly  as  now  constituted.  Any  ma- 
terial reduction  in  its  numbers,  (and  to  be  eflfective  it  must  be  mate- 
rial,) would  not  only  endanger  the  principle  of  adequate  representation, 
but  essentially  diminish  that  moral  power,  both  conservative  and  effi- 
cient, which  is  now  one  of  its  principal  functions. 

§  3.    Manner  of  Conducting  Business.    P] 

{Form  of  Gov.  chap,  xii.,  sec.  1.] 

There  appears  to  be  a  great  infelicity  in  the  manner  in  which  the 
Assembly  conducts  its  business.  Everything  is  fragmentary.  A  sub- 
ject is  introduced  one  day,  and  partially  discussed,  then  laid  aside  for 
something  else ;  then  resumed,  and  again  and  again  laid  aside.  Thus 
the  judicial  case  Number  1,  was  introduced  during  the  first  days  of  the 
sessions,  and  not  decided  before  the  very  last  days.  We  have  known  a 
member  to  be  four  days  in  delivering  a  speech,  which  would  not  have 
taken  an  hour,  if  delivered  continuously ;  but  which,  being  broken  into 
fragments  of  ten  or  twenty  minutes,  was  protracted  to  an  insufierable 
length,  greatly  to  the  detriment  of  its  effect,  and  to  the  speaker's  an- 
noyance. It  is  evident  that  this  is  a  great  evil,  especially  in  judicial 
cases.  The  minds  of  the  members  are  distracted,  and  the  Avhole  sub- 
ject gets  confused.     Some  hear  one  part,  and  others  another  part  of  the 

[■*  From  article  on  "  General  Assembly ;  "  Princeton  Review,  1863,  p.  498.] 


374  CHURCH  POLITY. 

evidence  or  argument.  All  this  may  be  avoided,  if,  instead  of  making 
particular  matters  of  business  the  order  of  the  day  for  a  specified  time, 
the  Assembly  should  determine  simply  the  order  in  which  the  several 
items  on  the  docket  shall  be  taken  up.  It  might  determine  to  take  up 
the  reports  of  the  several  Boards,  and  dispatch  each  before  taking  up 
anything  else.  Then  take  up,  say  a  judicial  case,  and  hear  it  to  the 
end,  before  any  other  toj^ic  is  introduced. 

The  business  of  the  Assembly  consists,  besides  matters  of  routine,  of 
three  great  divisions — reports  of  the  Boards,  judicial  cases,  and  the  con- 
sideration of  overtures.  There  might  be  some  advantage  in  taking  up 
these  subjects  in  their  order ;  but,  at  any  rate,  it  seems  to  us  eminently 
desirable,  that  when  any  one  important  subject  is  introduced,  it  should 
be  finally  determined  before  it  is  laid  aside. 

§  3.    Power  to  Act  by  Commission,  p] 

lFo7-ni  of  Gov.,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  v.— Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  564.] 

Dr.  Lacy,  from  the  Judicial  Committee,  reported  on  the  resolution 
offered  by  Dr.  Wines,  instructing  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  consider 
some  action  looking  to  the  relief  of  the  General  Assembly  in  judicial 
cases,  either  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  hear  and  issue  such 
cases,  or  the  adoption  of  an  overture  to  be  sent  down  to  the  presby- 
teries, or  some  other  plan. 

In  regard  to  the  first  suggestion,  the  committee  reported  it  unconstitutional,  and 
the  second  inexpedient;  which  conclusions  the  report  argued  at  some  length,  and 
further  reported  by  a  small  majority  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  attempt  any 
change. 

Judge  Fine  submitted  a  minority  report  favouring  an  amendment  in  the  consti- 
tution, and  proposing  an  overture  to  be  sent  down  to  the  Presbyteries,  asking — 
Shall  the  constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  terminate  all  judicial  cases  originating 
in  Church  sessions  in  the  synod,  and  all  originating  in  presbyteries,  in  the  Gene- 
ral A.ssembly? 

When  the  subject  came  up  for  discussion,  Dr.  Wines  moved  a  resolution  declar- 
ing that  so  much  of  the  report  of  the  committee  as  pronounced  the  ajipointment  of 
a  commission  by  the  Assembly,  unconstitutional,  be  not  approved.  His  argument 
in  support  of  this  resolution  embraced  the  following  points. 

1.  The  General  Assembly  is  a  representative  body,  and  does  not  act  from  pow- 
ers original  and  primary.  Its  powers  are  not  so  extensive  as  those  of  the  old 
synod,  which  was  a  meeting  of  all  presbyteries  in  one  body.  ''The  General 
Assembly  is  vested  only  with  defined  powers,  which  it  cannot  enlarge  without  the 
original  constituencies — the  Presbyteries." 

[*From  article  on  ''37te  General  Assembly ;"  topic,  ''Commissions;"  Princeton 
Review,  1855,  p.  502.] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  TO  ACT  BY  COMMISSION.       375 

This  is  a  very  common  theory,  but  in  our  opinion  an  erroneous  one, 
with  respect  to  our  constitution.  All  legitimate  Church  courts  act 
from  inherent  primary  powers.  Neither  session,  presbytery,  synod, 
nor  Assembly  derives  its  powers  from  the  constitution.  The  constitu- 
tion is  of  the  nature  of  a  treaty,  or  compact  between  different  portions 
of  the  Church,  as  to  the  way  in  which  their  inherent  powers  may  be  ex- 
ercised. If  a  presbytery  may  ordain,  or  try  a  minister,  what  is  to 
hinder  a  synod  or  a  General  Assembly  doing  so?  Nothing  in  the 
world  but  an  agreement  that  they  will  not  exercise  these  powers. 
All  Church  councils  representing  the  Church,  are  vested  with  all 
Church  power.  A  presbytery  may  do  all  that  a  session  may  do ;  a 
synod  can  do  all  that  a  presbytery  or  session  can  do ;  and  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  can  do  all  that  a  synod,  presbytery  or  session  can  do 
— except  so  far  as  their  hands  are  tied  by  a  written  agreement. 
Even  a  presbytery  can  exercise  its  inherent  powers  only  according 
to  the  prescriptions  of  the  constitution.  It  is  not  the  true  theory 
of  our  government,  therefore,  that  the  General  Assembly  has  only 
delegated  powers.  It  has  all  Church  power,  legislative,  judicial  and 
executive — though  the  exercise  of  these  powers,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
presbytery,  is  limited  and  guided  by  a  written  constitution;  and 
therefore  it  is  true  that  our  Assembly,  under  the  limitation  of  the 
constitution,  has  not  the  powers  of  the  original  Synod,  of  which  it  is 
the  successor.  Still  the  distinction  here  stated  is  one  of  importance. 
Much  depends  on  the  question,  whether  our  constitution  is  a  grant,  or 
a  limitation  of  powers. 


So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  reports  of  the  debates,  the  objections 
to  the  appointment  of  a  commission  for  judicial  cases,  were  not  urged 
with  the  plausibility  and  force  with  which  they  were  presented  last 
year  by  Chancellor  Johns  and  Dr.  McMasters.  The  great  objection 
then  urged  was,  that  a  court  could  not  delegate  its  powers.  What 
would  be  thought,  it  was  asked,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  if  that  venerable  body  should  delegate  its  functions  to  a  part  of 
its  members  ?  The  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that  there  is  no  delega- 
tion of  powers  involved  in  the  appointment  of  a  commission.  A  quo- 
rum of  a  presbytery,  no  matter  how  large  the  presbytery  may  be,  is 
the  presbytery ;  a  quorum  of  a  synod  is  the  synod,  and  a  quorum  of 
the  Assembly  is  the  Assembly.  In  like  manner,  inasmuch  as  a  com- 
mission must  embrace  at  least  a  quorum  of  the  appointing 
body,  a  commission  of  a  presbytery  is  the  presbytery,  a  commission  of 
the  synod  is  the  synod,  and  a  commission  of  the  Assembly  is  the  As- 


376  CHURCH  POLITY. 

sembly.  A  commission,  therefore,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  a  committee 
with  powers,  but  it  is  the  appointing  body  itself,  adjourned  to  meet  at 
a  certain  time  and  place,  for  the  transaction  of  a  specific  business — 
with  the  understanding  expressed  or  implied,  that  while  the  whole 
body  may  convene,  certain  members  are  required  to  attend.  When  a 
candidate  for  the  ministry  is  to  be  ordained,  A  B  are  appointed  to 
take  part  in  the  exercises.  It  is  understood  that  any  member  may  be 
present,  but  in  point  of  fact,  few  beyond  those  named  are  generally  con- 
vened. They  are  the  presbytery,  whether  any  other  member  is  pre- 
sent or  not ;  and  they  act  as  such.  In  many  cases,  they  examine  the 
candidate,  they  judge  of  his  qualifications  and  orthodoxy,  they  decide 
whether  he  shall  be  ordained  or  not,  and  if  the  way  be  clear,  they  or- 
dain him.  Does  any  body  cry  out  against  this,  as  a  delegation  of  pow- 
ers ?  or  against  three  or  four  men  being  trusted  to  exercise  the  func- 
tions of  a  body  consisting  it  may  be  of  eighty  or  a  hundred  members  ? 
In  England,  the  house  of  Lords  is  the  court  of  ultimate  appeal  in  judi- 
cial cases.  When  they  have  transacted  their  ordinary  business,  they 
adjourn  to  meet  in  their  judicial  capacity  for  the  trial  of  causes,  but  it 
is  with  the  understanding  that  none  need  attend  but  the  law-Lords  ; 
and,  in  point  of  fact,  few  others  ever  do  attend.  What  constitutional 
principle,  then,  forbids  a  presbytery  or  synod,  when  their  ordinary 
business  is  transacted  adjourning  to  meet  for  the  trial  of  a  judicial  case, 
with  the  understanding,  that,  (as  in  the  case  of  an  ordination,)  while 
the  whole  body  may  convene,  certain  specified  members  are  obligated 
to  attend?  It  may,  however,  be  objected,  that  the  presbytery  and 
synods  are  permanent  bodies,  and  the  Assembly  is  an  annual  one,  and 
is  dissolved  and  not  adjourned.  The  Assembly,  however,  may  sit  a 
whole  year.  It  may  sit  a  month,  and  then  adjourn  to  meet  at  any 
time  within  the  year  it  may  see  fit  to  appoint.  We  are,  therefore, 
unable  to  see  any  constitutional  objection  to  the  appointment  of  a  judi- 
cial commission.  It  is  well  known  that  our  ecclesiastical  courts  have 
often  appointed  such  bodies,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  annually  appoints  a  commission,  to  which  all  un- 
finished business  is  referred.  It  is  said  that  this  is  because  the  session 
of  that  body  is  limited  by  law  to  ten  days.  This,  however,  does  not  apply 
to  the  Free  Church.  Besides,  what  difference  does  it  make  ?  If  it  is 
anti-presbyterial  to  act  by  a  commission,  the  law  of  the  State  cannot 
make  it  presbyterial.  It  is  na  presumption,  therefore,  to  say  that  a 
mode  of  action  which  has  been  adopted  for  centuries  by  the  most  strin- 
gent and  influential  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  world,  of  its  own  free 
will,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  Presbyterianism. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  mere  question  of  expediency.     Something  must  be 
done  to  relieve  the  Assembly  of  the  pressure  of  judicial  cases.     To 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  DELIVEEANCES  ON  DOCTRIiN^ES.        377 

make  appeals  stop  with  the  synod,  violates  an  essential  principle  of 
our  system,  and  must  tend  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Church.  The  ap- 
pointment of  a  commission  is  a  long  tried  and  approved  method  of 
relief,  and  we  hope  it  will  be  ultimately  adopted,  not  only  by  the  As- 
sembly, but  by  synods  and  presbyteries. 

It  is  said,  that  probably  not  more  than  forty  members  would  attend 
a  commission  of  the  Assembly,  and  then  we  should  have  a  body  not 
more  than  one-half  as  large  as  an  ordinary  Synod,  acting  as  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  the  Church — with  its  two  thousand  ministers 
and  two  hundred  thousand  communicants.  It  is  said  also,  that  if  the 
decisions  of  such  a  body  Avere  not  to  be  reviewed,  its  power  would  be 
alarming,  and  if  reviewed,  it  would  be  of  no  use.  It  is  further  said, 
the  Church  would  have  no  confidence  in  the  judgment  of  such  a  body. 
It  is  evident  that  these  objections  are  addressed  to  the  imagination,  and 
not  to  the  understanding.  Fourteen  members  are  a  quorum  of  the 
Assembly,  and  may  constitutionally  act  as  the  supreme  judicatory 
of  the  Church.  Seven  members  are  a  quorum  of  a  synod,  and  may 
act  for  the  whole  body.  Three  are  a  quorum  of  a  presbytery,  even  if 
it  consists  of  an  hundred  members.  The  United  States'  Court  consists 
of  some  eight  or  ten  judges,  and  lays  down  the  law  for  twenty  mil- 
lions of  freemen.  A  dozen  law-Lords  make  decisions  affecting  all 
the  subjects  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  a  mere  chimera,  that  a  commis- 
sion would  be  a  mon-strum  horrendum.  Respect  and  confidence  follow 
competency  and  fidelity,  not  numbers. 

g  4.    Decisions  and  Deliverances  on  Doctrines. 

IForm  of  Gov.,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  v. ;  Digest  of  1873,  p.  218  ff.] 

a.  General  Reniarh.  [*] 

"We  cannot  refrain  from  making  a  remark  on  the  extreme  delicacy  of 
calling  on  deliberative  bodies,  and  especially  on  the  highest  judicatories 
of  a  Church  to  affirm  or  deny  doctrinal  propositions.  It  would  be  well 
to  remember  with  what  sedulous  care  and  frequent  debate  and  com- 
parison of  views  the  Westminster  Assembly  revised  and  determined  on 
the  language  employed  in  our  standards.  Luther  and  the  other  Wit- 
temberg  divines,  when  called  upon  to  furnish  the  diet  with  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  points  of  agreement  and  difference  between  them  and  the 
Romanists,  utterly  refused  on  the  ground  that  it  was  too  difficult  and 
serious  a  matter  to  be  done  in  a  few  days,  which  was  all  the  time  which 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  ;  "  Princeton  Review,  1837,  foot  note  to 
page  411. 


378  ,     CHUECH  POLITY. 

could  then  be  commanded.  We  see,  however,  that  in  our  Assembly  no 
hesitation  is  felt  in  moving  on  the  spot,  that  such  and  such  doctrinal 
propositions  be  approved  or  condemned. 

b.  Testimony  against  Erroneous  Publications.  [*] 

Tlie  second  resolution  on  the  [Pittsburgli]  Memorial  declares  it  to  be  the 
right  of  the  judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  bear  testimony 
against  erroneous  publications,  whether  the  author  be  a  member  of  the 
judicatory  passing  sentence  or  not.  This  resolution  was  opposed  on  the 
following  grounds: 

1.  On  account  of  peculiar  and  embarrassed  phraseology,  and  its  blending  subjects 
very  different  from  each  other.  The  case  of  a  book  published  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try, or  by  an  author  not  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  very  different 
from  that  of  a  book  published  by  a  member  of  our  own  judicatories,  and  with  his 
name  attached  to  it.  There  can  be  no  objection  to  any  body  warning  those  under 
its  care  against  a  book  likely  to  do  them  harm,  whose  author  was  not  amenable  to 
them  in  any  way ;  but  the  case  is  very  different  when  the  author  is  under  the  con- 
trol of  that  body.  The  resolution  reaches  both  classes  of  such  cases.  2.  It  is  in- 
consistent with  our  book  of  discipline,  and  with  the  universally  recognized  princi- 
ples of  justice  and  brotherly  love.  Because  it  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  trial 
of  the  author  without  an  accuser,  without  the  liberty  of  explanation  and  defence. 
It  is  a  condemnation  of  a  man  first,  and  the  trial  of  him  afterwards.  He  is  thus 
deprived  of  all  chance  of  a  fair  hearing.  A  minister  may  be  arraigned  before  his 
own  presbytery,  on  the  ground  of  a  certain  publication,  and,  while  the  cause  is 
pending,  a  superior  judicatory  to  which  this  very  case  may  be  brought  by  appeal, 
may  be  called  upon  to  decide  it  in  the  abstract;  thus  prejudicing  his  cause  in  the 
court  below,  and  prejudging  in  the  court  above.  Is  this  justice?  It  is  inconsis- 
tent also  with  the  tenderness  due  to  a  brother's  character  and  usefulness,  to  pro- 
nounce his  book  erroneous  or  injurious,  without  giving  him  the  opportunity  of 
explanation  or  defence.  3.  The  mode  of  proceeding  sanctioned  by  the  resolution 
is  unnecessary.  The  constitution  points  out  another  and  fairer  way  of  reaching 
the  case.  If  a  man  has  published  heresy,  let  him  be  arraigned  and  have  a  fair 
trial.  In  this  way,  if  his  book  is  erroneous,  it  can  be  condemned  and  the  people 
warned.  4.  Such  condemnations  of  books  may  do  more  harm  than  good,  by  in- 
creasing their  notoriety  and  extending  their  circulation. 

The  resolution  was  supported  on  the  following  grounds :  1.  It  was 
denied  that  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  a  book  was  a  trial  and  con- 
demnation of  the  author.  The  opinion  expressed  upon  the  book  might 
be  given  by  a  presbytery  to  which  the  author  was  not  ameuable,  and 
could  not  prejudice  his  having  a  fair  trial  before  his  own  body.  The 
opinion  did  not  affect  his  standing  or  rights  ;  his  liberty  to  explain  and 
defend  his  sentiments  was  not  impaired.     2.  There  are  two  different 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly ;"  topic,  "Pittsburgh  3Iemorial;" 
Princeton  Review,  1835,  p.  469.] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  DELIVEEANCES  ON  DOCTRINES.        379 

methods  by  which  our  judicatories  may  operate  to  correct  the  evils 
arising  from  erroneous  books ;  the  one  is  by  disciplining  their  authors, 
the  other  examining  and  condemning  the  books  themselves.  Sometimes 
justice  and  propriety  may  demand  the  one  course  and  sometimes  the 
other.  Because  a  judicatory  may  sometimes  adopt  the  latter  course, 
"when  it  should  have  adopted  the  former,  is  no  reason  why  the  latter 
should  be  in  all  cases  prohibited,  because  there  are  many  cases  in  which 
it  is  the  only  proper  or  practicable  method  of  meeting  the  evil.  A 
book  published  in  a  distant  part  of  the  country  may  be  circulating 
within  the  bounds  of  a  particular  presbytery  and  doing  much  injury. 
They  certainly  have  a  right  to  express  their  opinion  of  the  work,  with- 
out waiting  until  the  presbytery  to  which  the  author  belongs  think 
proper  to  call  him  to  an  account.  Or,  supposing  that  the  author's 
presbytery  thinks  there  is  nothing  seriously  erroneous  in  the  book,  are 
all  other  presbyteries,  though  they  may  think  very  differently,  to  be 
forced  to  allow  it  to  circulate  among  them  without  the  power  of  saying 
a  word  on  the  subject  ?  Again,  the  sentiments  of  a  book  may  be  erro- 
neous and  yet  not  heretical,  or  the  author  may  by  his  explanations 
satisfy  those  concerned  that  he  does  not  hold  the  errors  which  his  book 
may,  in  the  judgment  of  others,  inculcate.  A  tract  in  defence  of 
slavery,  or  of  Church  establishments,  or  against  temperance  societies, 
or  voluntary  associations,  might  be  so  written  as  to  do  much  evil,  with- 
out perha^js  justly  subjecting  their  authors  to  ecclesiastical  censure. 
Against  such  publications,  or  any  other  which  they  deem  injurious, 
Church  courts  have  a  right  to  protest,  and  to  warn  their  people.  All 
that  the  resolution  asserts  is  the  right.  That  it  may  be  unwisely  or 
imkindly  exercised  no  one  doubts,  but  this  does  not  invalidate  the  right 
itself. — 3.  This  right  has  ever  been  claimed  and  exercised  in  the 
Church.  In  the  constitution,  chap.  10,  sect.  8,  it  is  expressly  stated, 
that  among  the  powers  of  the  presbytery  is  that  of  condemning  "  erro- 
neous opinions,  which  injure  the  purity  or  peace  of  the  Church."  The 
import  of  this  declaration  is  rendered  perfectly  plain  by  the  reference, 
in  support  of  this  right,  to  Acts  xv.  22-24.  That  passage  does  not  con- 
tain an  example  of  the  disciplining  of  a  heretic,  but  of  the  condemna- 
tion of  an  erroneous  opinion  in  the  abstract.  The  council  at  Jerusalem 
pronounced  the  opinion  of  the  false  brethren,  who  had  crept  in  un- 
awares, to  be  erroneous  and  injurious.  The  General  Assembly  itself 
once  appointed  a  committee  to  examine  a  certain  book,  (Davis's  Gospel 
Plan)  and  the  report  of  that  committee  condemned  it,  and  then  directed 
the  presbytery  to  proceed  against  its  author.  See  Digest,  p.  144, 
[Digest  of  1873,  p.  222.]  Not  only  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  in 
all  ages  and  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  ecclesiastical  bodies  have,  from 
time  to  time,  warned  the  people   against  erroneous  publications— 4. 


380  CIIUECH  POLITY. 

There  is  little  clanger  of  this  power  being  abused.    The  danger  is  rather 
on  the  other  side.     In  this  age  and  country  at  least,  the  evil  is  that  the 
Church  is  disposed  too  much  to  overlook  both  books  and  men  who 
teach  erroneous  doctrines. 
The  resolution  was  carried. 

c.   Church  Commentary  on  the  Bible.  [*] 

Dr.  Breckinridge  offered  a  minute  to  provide  a  Commentary  on  the 
Scriptures  which  shall  be  in  accordance  with  the  "Westminster  doctrines 
of  this  Church,  as  follows : 

Inasmuch  as  the  want  of  a  sound,  godly,  and  thorough  commentary  on  the 
■whole  word  of  God,  composed  in  the  sense  of  the  constant  faith  of  the  Church  of 
God,  as  that  is  briefly  set  forth  in  the  standard  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
held  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  lias  long  been 
felt  to  be  a  grievous  want,  whereby  a  great  lack  of  due  service  to  God  and  to  his 
truth  occurs,  and  whereby  constant  danger  arises  to  men  of  needless  ignorance  on 
one  side,  and  of  dangerous  misguidance  on  the  other,  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  General  Assembly,  that  the  Board  of  Publication  shall,  and  it 
is  hereby  directed  to  proceed  with  all  convenient  despatch  to  have  sucli  a  com- 
mentary composed,  prepared  for  the  press  and  published.  And  in  the  execution 
of  this  great  work,  the  following  rules  and  orders,  together  with  such  further  as 
may  be  adopted  from  time  to  time  by  the  General  Assembly,  shall  be  carefully 
observed  by  the  Board  of  Publication,  and  bj  all  others  in  any  ways  engaged  in 
the  execution  of  any  part  thereof. 

1.  The  commentary  shall  be  prepared  exclusively  by  the  members  of  this 
Church,  and  in  the  preparing  of  it  they  shall  have  all  such  indulgence  as  to  time 
as  they  shall  respectively  demand.  And  for  their  own  compensation  and  their 
heirs,  shall  receive,  for  the  legal  term  of  twenty-eight  years,  a  fair  per  centum  on 
the  price  of  the  work  sold,  which  shall  be  settled  in  advance  by  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lication, and  which  shall  be  uniform,  and  in  lieu  of  all  claims  and  cost  of  every 
sort  in  any  way  connected  with  their  said  woi'k. 

2.  The  said  commentary  shall  be  fitted  for  common  use  by  all  men,  and  in  the 
preparation  of  it  free  use  may  be  made  of  all  material  that  may  exist;  the  design 
being  to  procure  not  so  much  what  may  be  original,  as  what  may  be  best  in  the 
way  of  enlightening  and  saving  men.  It  shall  not  be  prolix,  but  so  arranged  that 
the  whole  may  be  embraced  in  live  or  six  royal  octavo  volumes,  of  good  print, 
containing,  besides  commentary,  the  English  text  in  full,  together  with  the  usual 
accessories  thereof,  and  such  other  suitable  helps  to  its  understanding  as  plain  peo- 
ple need.  And  the  text  used  in  it  shall  be  strictly  that  of  the  version  prepared 
by  the  translators  appointed  by  .lames  the  First,  King  of  England. 

3.  In  order  to  secure  the  fittest  men  for  this  great  work,  the  Board  of  Publica- 
tion shall  make  special  application  to  the  general  synods  of  our  Church  at  the 
next  stated  meetings  respectively,  and  the  said  synods  shall,  upon  careful  conside- 
ration, nominate  to  the  said  Board  of  Publication  any  number  of  their  own  mem- 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assemblij ;"  same  topic^  Princeton  Review,  1858; 
p.  559] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  DELIVERANCES  ON  DOCTRINE.         381 

bers,  not  to  exceed  five  from  any  one  synod,  of  such  as  they  shall  consider  quali- 
fied to  undertake  the  work,  and  the  Board  of  Publication  may  add  not  more  than 
four,  in  addition  to  the  whole  number  thus  nominated  to  it,  and  it  shall  communi- 
cate the  list  of  names  thus  obtained  by  sifting  the  Church,  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, at  its  next  stated  meeting  in  May  of  next  year,  making,  at  the  same  time,  and 
from  year  to  year  thereafter,  report  of  its  doings  under  and  by  virtue  of  this 
minute. 

4.  The  General  Assembly  of  1859  will  take  such  further  order  in  the  premises, 
especially  with  regard  to  selection  of  persons  out  of  the  list  communicated  to  it,  to 
the  distribution  of  the  work  amongst  them,  and  to  all  things  needful  for  its  effect- 
ual prosecution,  as  shall  seem  most  expedient. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  very  nature  of  this  proiDosal,  as  well  as  from 
the  arguments  of  its  advocates,  that  it  contemplates  an  exposition  of 
the  whole  Scripture,  to  which  shall  be  given  the  sanction  of  Church 
authority.  If  the  mere  suggestion  of  such  an  idea  does  not  strike  a 
man  dumb  with  awe,  he  must  be  impervious  to  all  argument.  It  is  a 
fearful  thing  to  give  Church  authority  even  to  articles  of  faith  gathered 
from  the  general  sense  of  Scripture.  How  large  a  part  of  the  Church 
universal,  or  even  of  the  Church  of  England,  can  conscientiously  adopt 
the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  in  their  true  sense  ?  How  do  we  get  along 
with  our  more  extended  Confession  ?  We  could  not  hold  together  a 
week,  if  we  made  the  adoption  of  all  its  propositions  a  condition  of 
ministerial  communion.  How  is  it  with,  the  marriage  question?  If  it 
is  not  only  difficult  but  impossible  to  frame  a  creed  as  extended  as  the 
"Westminster  Confession,  which  can  be  adopted  in  all  its  details  by  the 
ministry  of  any  large  body  of  Christians,  what  shall  we  say  to  giving 
the  sanction  of  the  Church  to  a  given  interpretation  of  every  passage 
of  Scripture  ?  This  is  more  than  all  the  popes,  who  ever  lived,  merged 
in  one,  would  dare  to  propose.  It  is  a  thousand  fold  more  than  Rome, 
Avhen  most  drunk  with  pride,  ever  ventured  to  attempt.  Where  is 
there  such  a  thing  ?  who  has  ever  heard  of  such  a  thing  as  a  Church 
Commentary?  There  must  be  some  mistake  about  this  matter.  The  pro- 
position cannot  mean  what  it  appears  to  mean,  and  what  some  at  least, 
both  of  its  advocates  and  opponents,  understood  it  to  mean.  We  can- 
not persuade  ourselves  that  any  one,  having  the  least  idea  of  the  nature 
of  the  work,  any  apprehension  of  what  it  is,  to  come  to  a  clear  convic- 
tion, even  for  oneself,  what  is  the  true  interpretation  of  thousands  of 
texts  of  Scripture,  how  many  questions  of  philology,  of  grammar,  of 
logic,  of  geography,  history,  antiquities,  of  the  analogy  of  faith  and  of 
Scripture,  which  such  decision  involves,  could,  for  a  moment,  dream  of 
the  possibility  of  a  Church  exposition  of  the  whole  Bible.  The  pro- 
posal on  the  part  of  any  man,  or  any  body  of  men,  to  give  an  authorita- 
tive interpretation  of  unfulfilled  prophecy,  of  the  visions  of  Ezekiel, 
Zechariah,  Daniel,  and  John,  would  be  proof  that  God  had  given  him 


382  CHUECH  POLITY. 

or  tliem  up  to  strong  delusion.  No  amount  of  inspiration  ever  granted 
to  man  would  justify  such  an  assumption.  The  prophets  themselves 
did  not  understand  their  own  predictions.  The  apostles,  though  ren- 
dered infallible  in  what  they  taught,  were  as  ignorant,  it  may  be,  as 
other  men  of  what  they  did  not  teach.  The  Scriptures  were  as  much 
an  unfathomable  sea  of  Divine  knowledge  to  them  as  they  are  to  us. 
I  I  It  will  no  doubt  be  said,  that  the  view  above  given  of  the  design  of 
the  proposed  commentary  is  exaggerated  and  distorted.  It  is  very  pro- 
bable that  the  proposition  lies  in  the  minds  of  its  advocates  in  a  very 
different  form  from  that  which  it  presents  to  others.  AVe  are  speaking 
of  it  as  it  lies  in  the  record,  and  as  it  was  exhibited  in  the  speeches  of 
those  who  urged  its  adoption.  Some  may  say  that  there  is  no  great  harm 
in  the  Board  of  Publication  publishing  a  commentary  on  the  Bible. 
Certainly  not,  and  simply  because  the  Board  of  Publication  is  not  the 
Church,  and  therefore  no  special  authority  belongs  to  any  of  their  pub- 
lications. They  may  pi-int  the  commentaries  of  Henry  or  Scott,  or 
Dr.  Jacobus's  Notes  on  the  Gospel,  with  impunity,  because  no  one  is 
responsible  for  the  correctness  of  the  expositions  given  but  their  au- 
thors. Who  ever  dreams  that  the  Church  is  responsible  for  Dr.  Scott's 
interpretation  of  Ezekiel's  wheels?  Who  thinks  of  attributing  Church 
authority  to  Dr.  Jacobus's  exposition  of  our  Lord's  discourses?  These 
works  pass  for  what  they  are  intrinsically  worth,  and  for  no  more. 
But  here  it  is  proposed  to  pursue  the  same  course  in  making  a  com- 
mentary, as  was  adopted  in  making  our  Catechisms  and  compiling  our 
Hymn  Book.  The  Church,  as  such,  is  responsible  for  the  doctrinal 
correctness  of  every  hymn  in  the  collection.  The  people  do  not  know 
who  were  the  writers  or  who  the  compilers.  They  take  the  book  on 
the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  Church  is  fully  committed  to  its 
correctness.  This  must  be  the  case  in  regard  to  any  commentary  writ- 
ten by  men  selected  and  appointed  by  the  Church,  reporting  their 
"work  from  time  to  time,  as  they  proceed,  and  receiving  as  essential  the 
imprimatur  of  the  Church  to  what  they  write.  This  of  necessity  com- 
mits the  Church ;  and  this  purpose  was  clearly  avowed.  It  was  said 
that  the  Westminster  Confession  has  a  sense,  and  the  Church  has  a 
clear  conviction  of  what  that  sense  is ;  and  according  to  these  princi- 
ples the  commentary  is  to  be  constructed.  That  is,  the  Church  is  to 
see  to  it,  that  the  commentary  is  orthodox  and  correct ;  therefore  the 
Church  must  be  responsible.  When  this  commentary  is  quoted  in 
controversy,  it  will  come  not  with  the  authority  of  Luther,  or  Calvin, 
or  Scott,  or  Jacobus,  but  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  All  Presbyteri- 
ans will  go  to  it,  not  as  to  the  other  publications  of  the  Board,  written 
by  private  individuals,  but  as  to  a  book  having  authority,  as  being 
written  or  compiled  by  the  Church.     The  plan  proposed  is  much  the 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  DELIVEEANCES  ON  DOCTRINE.        383 

same  as  that  pursued  by  our  Baptist  friends  in  the  preparation  of  their 
new  version.  If  that  ^York  should  be  completed,  it  will  be  the  Baptist 
version,  not  Dr.  Conant's  or  Professor  Hackett's  version,  but  the  Bap- 
tist version — one  to  which  the  Baptists  as  a  denomination  stand  com- 
mitted. So  the  proposed  commentary  will  be  the  Presbyterian  com- 
mentary, not  the  commentary  of  Mr.  A.  or  of  Dr.  B.,  and  it  must  of 
necessity  be  clothed  with  Church  authority.  This  was  evidently  con- 
templated by  those  who  urged  that  the  exposition  of  Scripture  should 
be  kept  under  the  vigilant  eye  of  the  Church,  and  who  pleaded  the  pro- 
mise of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Church  as  a  reason  why  the  Avork  should 
not  be  referred  to  the  Board  of  Publication,  but  decided  upon  and  car- 
ried out  by  the  Church  itself,  the  Board  being  only  her  agent,  as  in 
the  preparation  of  the  Hymn  Book.  This  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the 
whole  scheme,  for  the  Church  will  never  submit,  unless  God  has  with- 
drawn from  her  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  of  a  sound  mind,  to  have  im- 
posed upon  her  the  interpretations  of  any  man,  as  of  authority  in  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures. 

Besides  this,  the  object  aimed  at  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the 
liberty  of  believing,  but  it  is  utterly  impracticable.  It  is  said  the 
Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  Church's  sense  of  the 
"Westminster  Confession.  But  who  is  to  tell  us  the  Church's  sense 
of  the  Confession  ?  It  is  notorious,  that  as  to  that  point  we  are  not 
agreed.  In  the  second  place,  even  as  to  points  in  which  the  sense 
of  the  Confession  is  plain,  there  is  want  of  entire  concurrence  in 
its  reception ;  and  what  is  the  main  point,  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
the  sense  of  the  Westminster  Confession  as  to  the  true  interpretation 
of  thousands  of  passages  of  Scripture.  The  standard  is  an  imaginary 
one.  What  does  that  Confession  teach  of  the  dark  sayings  of  Hosea, 
of  the  baptism  for  the  dead,  or  the  sense  of  Gal.  iii.  20,  concerning 
which  an  octavo  volume  has  been  written,  giving  no  less  than  one 
himdred  and  fifty  distinct  interpretations  ?  It  is  plain  that  there  is 
noj;,  and  that  there  cannot  be  a  standard  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures  in  detail ;  and  therefore  the  Church  must  either  submit  to 
have  the  opinions  of  some  one  man  enacted  into  the  laws  to  bind  the 
reason  and  conscience  of  all  other  men,  or  she  must  give  up  the  idea 
of  having  a  Church  exposition  of  the  Bible. 

Admitting,  however,  that  such  a  work  is  desirable,  and  that  it  is 
practicable,  where  are  the  men  to  be  found  to  execute  the  task  ?  It  is 
proposed  that  each  synod  should  nominate  five  of  its  own  members  for 
the  work,  some  one  hundred  and  sixty  in  all.  We  venture  to  say, 
that  instead  of  our  Church  being  able  to  furnish  a  hundred  men  fit 
for  such  a  work  as  this,  it  does  not  contain,  and  never  has  contained, 
any  one  such  man.     It  is  bad  enough  for  any  poor  sinner,  after  all  his 


384  CHUECH  POLITY. 

study,  to  undertake  to  present  his  own  private  judgment  as  to  the 
meaning  of  Scripture,  and  to  state  the  reasons  for  his  opinion,  leaving 
all  other  men  to  judge  for  themselves,  to  receive  or  reject  his  interpre- 
tation as  they  may  see  fit.  But  to  assume  to  act  as  the  mouthpiece  of 
the  Church  in  this  matter,  to  say  what  the  Church  believes  as  to  the 
meaning  of  each  text  of  Scripture,  and  what  all  its  members,  there- 
fore, are  bound  to  receive  as  its  meaning,  is  a  task  which  none  but  an 
idiot  or  an  angel  would  dare  to  undertake. 

§  5.  ISraperixitendlence. 

[Formof  Government,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  V-] 

a.  Disposal  of  the  Members  of  a  Dissolved  Presbytery.  [*] 
[Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  2G3.] 

Resolutions  were  introduced  in  relation  to  the  Third  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  which,  as  modified  by  the  mover,  were  adopted  in  the 
following  form,  viz. 

"  Be  it  resolved  by  tlie  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Cliurcli  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 

"1.  That  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  be,  and  it  hereby  is,  dissolved. 

''2.  The  territory  embraced  in  this  presbytery  is  re-annexed  to  those  to  which 
it  respectively  appertained  before  its  creation.  Its  stated  clerk  is  directed  to 
deposit  all  their  records,  and  other  papers,  in  the  hands  of  the  stated  clerk  of 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  the  sessions  of  that  synod, 
at  its  first  meeting  after  this  Assembly  adjourns. 

"3.  The  candidates  and  Foreign  Missionaries  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia are  hereby  attached  to  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

"4.  The  ministers,  churches,  and  licentiates  in  the  presbytery  hereby  dissolved 
are  directed  to  apply  without  delay  to  the  presbyteries  to  which  they  most  natu- 
rally belong,  for  admission  into  them.  And  upon  application  being  so  made,  by 
any  duly  organized  Presbyterian  church,  it  shall  be  received. 

''5.  These  resolutions  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after  the  final  adjournment  of 
the  present  sessions  of  this  General  Assembly." 

Yeas  70,  nays  60. 

These  resolutions  were  advocated  on  the  ground  of  the  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  act  of  the  Assembly  by  which  this  presbytery  was  con- 
stituted, and  of  the  evils  which  had  resulted,  and  were  likely  still  far- 
ther to  result  from  its  existence  in  its  present  form. 

*  51:*****  *  *** 

We  do  not  question  the  right  of  the  Assembly  to  act  in  this  case, 
and  to  dissolve  the  presbytery  which  they  themselves  had  formed,  but 

[*  From  Article  on  "  The  General  Assembly,"  Princeton  Review,  1835,  p.  476.] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPEEINTENDENCE.        385 

we  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  done.  It 
was  said,  that  the  Assembly  has  no  authority  to  attach  any  minister  to 
a  presbytery  without  its  consent.  This,  as  a  general  rule,  may  be  true. 
But  in  those  cases  in  which  the  Assembly  undertakes  to  assign  limits 
to  i^resbyteries,  or  to  constitute  or  dissolve  such  bodies,  they  must  de- 
termine who  shall  and  who  shall  not  belong  to  them.  The  great  diffi- 
culty arises  from  the  anomalous  position  in  which  this  act  places  the 
members  of  this  presbytery.  By  the  act  of  dissolution  their  presbytery 
ceases  to  exist.  They  are  then  members  of  no  presbytery,  and  yet 
Presbyterian  ministers.  They  are  indeed  directed  to  apply  for  admis- 
sion into  the  presbyteries  to  which  they  most  naturally  belong.  Sup- 
j)ose,  however,  these  bodies  refuse  to  receive  them.  In  what  condition 
are  they  then  ?  Are  they  in  or  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Is  a 
minister  turned  out  of  the  Church  by  the  refusal  of  a  particular  pres- 
bytery to  receive  him  ?  This  cannot  be  assumed  as  a  constitutional 
mode  of  getting  rid  of  a  man.  And  if  he  is  still  a  minister  within  the 
Church,  what  is  he  to  do  ?  Is  he  to  apply  to  some  other  presbytery  to 
take  him  in  ?  Or  is  he  to  remain  unattached  to  any  ecclesiastical 
body  ?  It  seems  to  us  that  the  only  proper  method  of  disposing  of  this 
case,  if  it  was  taken  up  at  all,  was  either  to  refer  the  whole  matter  to 
the  synod,  or  at  once  to  attach  the  members,  as  was  done  in  the  case 
of  the  foreign  missionaries,  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  existing  presby- 
teries. 

b.  Exclusion  of  the  Spied  of  Western  Reserve.  [*] 
[Comp.  Digest  oi  1873,  pp.  263-267,  525.] 

Mr.  Plumer  presented  the  following  resolution :  Resolved,  That  by 
the  operation  of  the  abrogation  of  the  plan  of  union  of  1801,  the 
Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  is,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  no 
longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 

This  resolution  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Jessup,  M'Auley,  Cleave- 
land  and  Peters,  It  was  supported  by  Messrs.  Baxter,  Plumer,  Jun- 
kin,  Ewing  and  Anderson.  The  debate  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
house  the  greater  part  of  the  time  from  Tuesday  morning,  until  the 
close  of  the  session  on  Thursday  morning,  when  the  question  was  put 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  132,  nays,  105.  f 

[*  From  article  on  ''The  General  Assembly;"  same  topic;  Princeton  Review, 
1837,  p.  448.] 

f  In  the  preceding  sketch  of  the  debate  on  the  abrogation  of  the  plan  of  union, 
[see  p.  480,  of  Review  for  1837,]  some  of  the  arguments  presented  were  borrowed 
from  the  speeches  delivered  on  the  exclusion  of  the  Western  Keserve  Synod,  as 
the  constitutionality  of  that  plan  was  reargued,  when  this  latter  subject  was  under 
discussion.  In  like  manner,  in  preparing  the  outline  of  the  debate  on  the  resolu- 
25 


386  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  opponents  of  the  resolution  argued  thus.  1.  This  measure  is  professedly 
based  on  the  assumption  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  plan  of  union.  We 
deny,  however,  that  the  plan  is  unconstitutional,  because  no  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution was  violated.*  We  admit  it  was  not  purely  presbyterial  in  its  charac- 
ter. And  that  the  plan  itself  professes.  It  was,  what  it  professes  to  be,  neither 
more  nor  less,  a  scheme  to  promote  union  and  harmony  and  piety  among  a  class 
of  inhabitants  who  were  gathered  together  from  different  quarters,  and  with  dif- 
ferent views  of  Church  government.  But  we  are  now  thrown  upon  such  an  age 
of  new  light,  as  to  be  told  that  a  plan  to  promote  piety  and  harmony  is  beyond 
the  powers  of  our  Presbyterian  constitution.  If  this  plan  is  unconstitutional,  be- 
cause it  was  not  submitted  to  the  presbyteries,  then  the  acts  to  establish  the  Prince- 
ton Seminary,  and  your  Boards  of  Missions  and  Education  are  also  unconstitu- 
tional. There  is  not  a  particle  of  provision  in  your  constitution  for  these  acts,  and 
they  were  never  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  approval.  If  there  should  come 
a  change  in  the  balance  of  power  in  this  Assembly,  and  we  believe  it  will  come, 
you  are  preparing  a  fine  weapon  to  be  used  by  your  opposers;  one  which  these 
hawk-eyed  Yankees,  it  is  to  be  feared,  will  use  in  their  turn  when  they  have  the 
power.  They  will  take  your  hated  trio,  the  Seminary  and  the  two  Boards,  and 
lay  them  on  the  block,  and  by  a  single  fall  of  your  patent,  cut  off  the  three  heads 
at  a  single  blow.  And,  if  they  ever  do  it,  they  will  plead  the  precedent  you  are 
now  about  to  set,  as  a  full  apology  for  such  a  stretch  of  power.  Again,  if  the  plan 
of  union  is  unconstitutional,  because  not  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries,  the  adoption 
of  the  Scotch  Seceder  churches  was  unconstitutional,  for  that  was  not  sent  down, 
and  that  act  is_both  ipso  facto  void,  and  all  that  has  been  done  under  it,  is  void  ah 
initio,  and  they  are  not  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

2.  If  we  even  admit  that  the  plan  was  and  is  unconstitutional,  it  would  not  fol- 
low that  the  abrogation  act  sweeps  away  every  thing  which  rests  upon  that  plan. 
The  principle  that  all  the  rights  vested  under  an  unconstitutional  law  are  invali- 
dated, and  fall  as  soon  as  the  law  is  abrogated,  is  monstrous:  it  would  break  all 
the  ligaments  of  society,  and  destroy  all  the  vested  rights  of  property.  If  it 
should  be  applied  to  the  present  case,  then  all  the  licensures,  ordinations,  and  ti- 
tles to  Church  property,  under  the  plan  of  union,  were  thrown  to  the  winds. 
Your  vote  can  never  make  it  true;  wise  men  and  Christians  will  see  the  injustice; 
and  half  the  state  of  New  York  will  be  involved  in  it.  To  show  the  unsoundness 
of  this  principle,  we  appeal  to  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  jurists  that 
ever  lived.  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  supreme  court  in 
the  Yazoo-land  case,  assumed  the  position,  that  as  the  state  of  Georgia  was  a  party 
to  the  contract  conveying  those  lands,  that  state  could  not  disannul  its  own  con- 

tion  respecting  the  Western  Reserve  Synod,  we  have  borrowed  largely  from  the 
speeches  on  the  exclusion  of  the  New  York  synods,  particularly  from  that  of  Dr. 
Beman,  who,  in  his  speech  of  Saturday  and  Monday,  went  at  a  great  length  into 
the  whole  question. 

*  These  gentlemen  differ  very  much  on  this  point;  sometimes  they  say  the  plan 
is  unconstitutional,  and  sometimes  that  it  is  not ;  sometimes  that  it  was  unconsti- 
tutional at  first,  but  has  since  been  ratified,  while  some  admit  that  it  is  utterly 
subversive  of  every  principle  of  Presbyterianism.  "I  admit,"  says  Mr.  Skillman, 
{Qr.  Stillman)  ''that  the  contract,  as  at  first  adopted,  was  not  according  to  the  con- 
stitution."—N.  Y.  Ob.,  June  3. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         337 

tract  for  any  reason  whatever.  We  admit  that  the  decision  of  the  court  in  the 
case  itself,  as  between  those  parties,  did  not  turn  on  this  point,  respecting  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  act,  but  on  the  charge  of  bribery  in  the  legislature.  But  in 
giving  the  opinion  of  the  court,  the  venerable  judge  has  incidentally  laid  down  a 
principle,  which  bears  directly  on  the  case  before  us.  "For  a  party,"  he  says, 
"to  pronounce  its  own  deed  invalid,  whatever  cause  may  be  assigned  for  the  inva- 
lidity, must  be  considered  a  mere  act  of  power,  which  must  find  its  vindication  in 
a  course  of  reasoning  not  often  heard  in  a  court  of  justice."  Cranch's  Reports, 
vol.  vi.  p.  135.  Are  we  wrong  then  in  assuming  that  if  the  law  of  the  state  of 
Georgia,  conveying  these  lands,  had  been  unconstitutional,  the  legislature  that 
made  the  law,  and  then  repealed  it,  could  not  by  this  take  advantage  of  its  own 
wrong,  and  proceed  to  annihilate  contracts  made  and  rights  vested  under  the  rule 
which  they  themselves  had  made?  Again,  the  judge  says,  "When  a  law  is,  in  its 
nature  a  contract,  when  absolute  rights  have  vested  under  that  contract,  a  repeal 
of  the  law  cannot  divest  those  rights."  Let  us  suppose,  for  illustration,  that  Con- 
gress should  pass  a  law  which  is  in  fact  unconstitutional,  supposing  it  to  be  consti- 
tutional, and  the  thing  goes  on  for  thirty-six  years,  and  under  its  operation  vari- 
ous rights  have  vested,  and  various  institutions,  commercial,  literary  or  political, 
have  grown  up,  for  instance,  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  Now,  at  the  end  of 
thirty-six  years,  the  law  is  pronounced  unconstitutional,  what  would  be  the  eflfect 
of  such  a  decision?  We  venture  to  affirm  that  no  court  or  Congress  of  the  nation 
would  ever  attempt  to  carry  out  the  decision,  in  the  manner  we  are  doing,  to 
crush,  not  merely  the  institutions  formed,  but  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  in  which 
they  have  existed.  Why,  sir,  what  do  you  propose?  By  the  very  principle  as- 
sumed, you  have  only  power  to  annihilate  the  institutions  formed  under  the  plan 
of  union.  But  you  propose  to  annihilate  a  whole  synod  regularly  and  constitu- 
tionally formed.  If  this  is  justice,  it  is  justice  with  a  vengeance.  Let  us  take 
another  case.  Suppose  the  state  of  Georgia  had,  thirty-six  years  ago,  invited  the 
missionaries  to  come  and  labour  for  the  benefit  of  the  Indians,  assuring  them  of 
protection,  and  by  an  unconstitutional  law,  had  granted  certain  rights  and  privi- 
leges to  the  missionaries  and  the  Indians,  on  the  strength  of  which  houses  and 
towns  had  been  built;  and  then  after  the  process  of  civilization  had  been  going  on 
for  thirty-six  years,  there  was  a  decision,  not  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  of  glorious 
legal  memory,  but  of  a  majority  in  a  vacillating  legislature,  that  is  chosen  every 
year,  and  changes  as  often,  that  the  law  is  unconstitutional.  Could  they  then 
take  advantage  of  their  own  wrong,  and  immediately  send  out  the  sheriff,  without 
process  or  trial,  to  imprison  the  missionaries,  break  up  their  settlements,  and  hang 
the  poor  Indians,  for  no  other  crime  than  that  of  exercising  the  rights  which  had 
been  granted  to  them  by  a  former  legislature? 

3.  We  may,  however,  admit  every  thing  that  is  claimed,  1.  That  the  plan  of 
union  is  unconstitutional ;  2.  That  the  abrogation  act  sweeps  away  every  thing  which 
rests  upon  it,  and  what  follows?  Why  you  cannot  touch  one  synod  or  presbytery; 
you  merely  sweep  away  the  churches  which  are  of  a  mixed  character.  There  are  . 
many  good  and  honest  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  house,  whose  minds  are  so 
filled  with  rumours  that  they  have  hardly  room  to  receive  the  truth,  who  are 
therefore  prepared  to  say  aye  to  this  resolution,  supposing  they  are  going  to  cut  off 
a  synod  formed  on  an  unconstitutional  basis.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  Our  book 
says  that  a  presbytery  consists  of  all  the  ministers  within  a  certain  district,  and  a 
ruling  elder  from  each  church.  The  presbyteries  out  of  which  this  synod  was 
formed  were  regularly  organized  by  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  and  by  the  General 


388  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Assembly  of  1825  the  presbyteries  were  regularly  formed  into  a  synod,  which  has 
been  recognized  ever  since.  Now  admitting  there  are  churches  among  them 
formed  on  the  plan  of  union,  and  that  this  plan  is  unconstitutional  and  void,  how 
does  this  affect  the  standing  of  Presbyterian  ministers  and  churches,  or  the  stand- 
ing of  the  presbyteries  or  synod  ?  A  minister  becomes,  by  his  ordination,  a  member 
of  presbytery,  and  a  constituent  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  How  is  his  re- 
lation to  the  Church  affected  by  your  pronouncing  the  plan  of  union  uncohstitu- 
tional?  His  standing  is  not  on  that  plan,  and  therefore  he  does  not  fall,  even 
though  the  plan  be  annihilated.  You  allow  your  ministers  to  be  editors,  teach- 
ers, farmers  and  merchants,  without  disowning  them;  are  they  necessarily  out  of 
the  Church  the  moment  they  become  the  pastors  of  Congregational  or  mixed 
churches?  It  must  be  remembered  that  many  of  these  ministers  were  regularly 
ordained  by  other  presbyteries,  about  whose  regularity  there  is  no  question.  And 
yet  you  propose  to  declare  them  to  be  no  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  merely 
because  there  are  some  churches  connected  with  the  Presbyteries  to  which  they 
now  belong,  whose  organization  you  choose  to  pronounce  irregular. 

4.  Whatever  name  may  be  given  to  this  proceeding,  it  is  to  all  intents  an  act  of 
discipline.  Upwards  of  a  hundred  ministers  and  churches  are  to  be  condemned 
without  a  trial.  If  there  are  irregularities  and  disorders  within  the  bounds  of 
this  synod  which  it  refuses  to  correct,  your  proper  course  would  be  to  cite  them  to 
your  bar;  to  ascertain,  by  judicial  process,  the  real  state  of  the  facts,  and  if  they 
refuse  to  abate  these  evils,  to  deal  with  them  as  the  case  may  demand.  But  this 
resolution  cuts  them  off  without  the  show  of  a  legal  process.  It  virtually  excom- 
municates them  without  the  form  of  a  trial. 

5.  The  consequences  of  the  principle  on  which  this  measure  is  based  reach  much 
farther  than  many  seem  to  imagine.  You  cannot  consistently  stop  short  after  the 
excision  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve.  If  that  synod  is  no  part  of  the 
church,  because  the  plan  of  union  is  unconstitutional,  then  all  those  synods  and 
presbyteries  embracing  churches  formed  on  that  plan  must  also  be  disowned. 
What  then  will  become,  not  only  of  the  synods  of  Western  New  York,  but  of  Al- 
bany and  New  Jersey?  W^hy,  there  were  in  the  Albany  Synod,  as  late  as  the  year 
1808,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  General  Assembly  too,  things  which  you  will 
acknowledge  to  be  a  great  deal  worse  than  the  plan  of  union  ever  was.  By  the 
express  command  of  the  General  Assembly,  they  were  required  to  have,  and  did 
kave,  on  the  floor  of  the  synod,  as  members,  A  whole  CoNGREGATiONAii  Asso- 
ciation. And  now  what  will  you  do?  We  go  yet  further.  That  same  Albany 
Synod  has  controlled  the  acts  of  this  body,  and  has  furnished  no  less  than  five  or 
six  moderators  in  the  seat  which  you  now  occupy.  On  the  arguments  of  these 
brethren  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  unsound  to  the  core ;  this  congregational 
gangrene  has  seized  upon  the  very  vitals  of  the  body,  and  you  cannot  cut  it  out 
without  destroying  your  own  life. 

Again,  what  are  to  be  the  legal  consequences  of  these  proceedings?  Were  you 
sitting  in  a  state  which  had  a  court  of  chancery,  his  honour  the  chancellor  might 
lay  an  injunction  on  your  proceedings ;  and  if  it  were  done,  a  few  hours  would 
terminate  the  brief  authority  by  which  you  sit  in  that  chair.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  these  proceedings  can  be  reviewed  in  the  courts  of  justice.  Probably 
it  would  be  the  delight  of  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  to  crush  your  charter,  if 
in  one  thing  you  depart  from  the  line  of  the  law ;  and  if  once  done,  it  will  be  long 
before  you  get  another.  Let  the  men  who  are  legislating  against  unconstitutional 
measurea  beware  themselves  not  to  do  anything  unconstitutional.     We  know  who 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         389 

said,  "  He  that  taketh  the  sword  shall  perish  by  tlie  sword."  And  if  you  take  the 
sword  of  illegitimate  power,  you  may  yourself  fall  by  the  sword  of  the  civil  power. 
There  is  oae  thought  more  which  deserves  serious  consideration.  The  act  you 
propose  to  do,  will  fix  indelibly  on  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  character  of  utter 
faithlessness  to  her  own  solemn  compacts.  The  Churcli  in  this  country  is  fast 
treading  in  the  footsteps  of  the  world.  What  is  now  the  state  of  our  commercial 
credit  at  home  and  abroad  ?  It  is  gone.  As  a  nation  we  have  broken  faith  with 
the  natives  who  put  themselves  under  the  broad  wing  of  our  national  eagle  for 
protection.  We  have  torn  our  solemn  treaties  to  pieces,  and  given  their  frag- 
ments to  the  winds  of  heaven;  and  to  wind  up  the  disgraceful  drama,  we  have 
imprisoned  the  missionaries  of  the  cross,  who  went  forth,  by  our  own  sanction,  to 
enlighten  and  cultivate  the  Indian  race.  But  what  are  you  doing?  You  are  out- 
stripping everything  which  politicians  have  ever  done.  Go  on  and  complete  what 
you  have  done,  and  you  will  render  American  faith,  in  treaties  and  in  commerce, 
and  Presbyterian  faith  in  religion,  as  notorious  in  modern  history  as  Punic  faith 
was  in  ancient  days. 

In  support  of  the  resolution,  it  was  urged,  1.  That  it  was  neither  in 
intention  nor  fact  an  act  of  discipline.  Such  act  supposes  an  offence, 
a  trial,  and  a  sentence.  The  resolution,  however,  charges  no  offence, 
it  proposes  no  trial,  it  threatens  no  sentence.  It  purports  merely  to 
declare  a  fact,  and  assigns  a  reason  for  the  declaration.  It  has  neither 
the  form  nor  the  operation  of  a  judicial  process.  Should  the  resolution 
be  adopted,  it  will  not  affect  the  standing  of  the  members  of  this  synod 
as  Christians,  as  ministers  or  pastors.  It  will  simply  alter  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  "We  do  not  propose  to  excommuni- 
cate them  as  Church  members,  or  to  depose  them  as  ministers.  We  do 
not  withdraw  our  confidence  from  them,  or  intend  to  cast  any  imputa- 
tion on  them.  We  simply  declare  that  they  are  not  constitutionally  a 
part  of  our  Church.  Whether  this  declaration  is  consistent  with  the 
truth,  and  whether  we  have  the  right  to  make  it,  are  the  points  now  to 
be  argued.  The  attempt  to  excite  prejudice  against  the  measure  as  a 
condemnation  without  trial,  as  a  new  method  of  discipline,  as  a  high- 
handed and  oppressive  act  of  power,  is  uncandid  and  unfair.  Is  it  an 
act  of  oppression  for  a  court  to  declare  that  an  Englishman  is  not  an 
American,  or  that  an  alien  is  not  a  citizen  ?  The  decision  may  be  erro- 
neous, or  it  may  arise  from  impure  motives  ;  but  the  effort  to  decry  the 
mere  mode  of  proceeding  as  an  extra-judicial  trial,  a  form  of  punishing 
without  a  defence,  and  before  conviction,  would  be  preposterous. 

The  resolution  declares  that  the  Western  Reserve  Synod  is  not  a 
regular  portion  of  our  Chiu-ch,  and  it  rests  this  declaration  on  the  un- 
constitutionality of  the  plan  of  union.  Of  course  it  is  here  assumed, 
first,  that  this  plan  is  unconstitutional ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  synod 
in  question  is  in  the  Church  only  in  virtue  of  that  plan:  The  former 
of  these  points,  having  been  already  decided  by  the  house,  is  now  to  be 


390  CHUECH  POLITY. 

taken  for  granted.  And  this  may  the  more  safely  be  done  because  it 
has  been  freely  conceded  by  members  on  the  opposite  side,  and  because 
it  is  so  obvious  as  scarcely  to  admit  of  being  proved.  It  is  in  fact  as 
plain  as  that  a  Congregational  church  is  not  a  Presbyterian  church. 
With  regard  to  the  second  point,  we  admit  that  something  more  is 
necessary  than  merely  to  prove  that  the  plan  of  union  is  unconstitu- 
tional. It  must  be  shown,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  churches  within 
the  bounds  of  this  synod  were  formed  on  the  basis  of  this  plan; 
secondly,  that  the  abrogation  of  the  plan  effects  the  separation  of  those 
churches  from  this  body ;  and,  thirdly,  that  the  connection  of  the  synod 
is  of  necessity  also  thereby  dissolved. 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  points  it  is,  as  a  general  fact,  a 
matter  of  historical  notoriety,  and  might  be  as  safely  assumed  as  that 
the  United  States  were  originally  British  colonies.  It  is  extremely 
difficult,  however,  to  get  at  the  details,  and  ascertain  what  proportion 
of  these  churches  are  still  Congregational.  This  difiiculty  arises  from 
the  censurable  custom  of  reporting  all  the  churches  connected  with 
the  presbyteries  included  within  this  synod  as  Presbyterian  churches, 
no  matter  what  their  real  character  may  be.  We  are  saved  a  good 
deal  of  trouble,  however,  on  this  point,  by  the  admission  of  the  com- 
missioners from  these  presbyteries,  that  of  the  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
churches  belonging  to  the  synod,  only  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  are 
presbyterially  organized  ;  all  the  rest  being  Congregational  or  mixed.* 
This,  surely,  is  enough  to  show,  what  indeed  everybody  knows,  that  this 
synod  is  essentially  a  Congregational  body;  that  the  great  majority  of 
its  churches  have  no  other  connection  with  this  Assembly  than  that 
which  is  given  them  by  the  plan  of  union.  The  question  then  is,  does 
the  abrogation  of  that  plan  dissolve  this  connection  ?  It  undoubtedly 
does,  unless  you  take  measures  to  prevent  it,  and  declare  the  contrary. 
The  system  has  been  so  long  tolerated,  that  this  house  would  be  justified 
in  a  court  of  equity,  and  would  doubtless  be  sustained  by  the  presby- 
teries, if  it  should  see  fit  to  allow  time  for  the  churches  formed  under 
it  to  re-organize  themselves  and  come  into  regular  connection  with  this 
Assembly.  But  if,  on  the  whole,  the  house  thinks  that  the  connection 
should  cease  immediately,  they  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  make  the  de- 
claration contained  in  this  resolution.  The  operation  of  the  abrogation 
is  to  dissolve  the  connection.  This  is  the  common-sense  view  of  the 
case  which  every  man  would  take  who  had  not  got  bewildered  by  loook- 
ing  at  detached  fragments  of  legal  reports ;  and  which  any  one  who  has 
patience  to  read  a  little  more  than  a  fragment,  must  take  with  increased 
confidence.     The  General  Assembly  pass  a  resolution  declaring  that 

*  See  the  statement  given  to  the  Assembly  by  Mr.  Brown,  elder  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  Lorain,  as  reported  in  the  Presbyterian,  June  10,  [1837.]  ^ 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         39I 

churclies  organized  in  a  certain  way  may  be  connected  with  our  body ; 
afterwards  they  rescind  that  resolution — what  is  the  consequence? 
Why  certainly  to  withdraw  the  permission  and  dissolve  the  connection. 
The  connection  was  formed  by  the  first  resolution,  it  lasts  while  the 
resolution  continues,  and  ceases  when  it  is  repealed.  This  is  common 
sense.  "  The  plan  of  union,"  says  the  N.  Y.  Evangelist,  announcing 
your  previous  decision,  "  is  abrogated  ;  and  the  churches  which  are 
built  on  that  basis  are  now  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church." 

It  is  however,  objected  that,  where  a  law  is  of  the  nature  of  a  contract, 
its  repeal  cannot  invalidate  the  rights  which  have  vested  under  it.  We 
admit  the  principle  freely,  but  we  ask,  what  is  a  law ;  it  is  an  enact- 
ment made  by  a  competent  authority,  in  the  exercise  of  its  legitimate 
powers.  An  act  passed  by  a  body  that  had  no  right  to  pass  it,  is  no 
law ;  it  has  no  binding  force ;  it  is  legally  nothing  and  can  give  existence 
to  nothing  legal.  Suppose  Congress  should  enact  that  the  king  of  Great 
Britain  should  be  the  president  of  the  United  States,  would  that  be 
a  law?  If  the  British  acceded  to  the  proposal,  it  would  be  of 
the  nature  of  a  contract ;  and  if  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  op- 
posite be  worth  any  thing,  it  would  be  binding  in  despite  of  the  con- 
stitution or  wishes  of  the  country.  The  fallacy  lies  here  in  begging 
the  question ;  in  assuming  that  an  unconstitutional  act  of  a  legislature 
is  a  law.  It  seems,  however,  that  Chief  Justice  Marshall  has  sanc- 
tioned the  principle  that  an  act,  though  unconstitutional,  is  valid,  if 
rights  have  vested  under  it.  We  hold  this  to  be  a  priori  impossible. 
Of  all  eminent  jurists,  that  distinguished  judge  infused  most  of  com- 
mon sense  into  his  legal '  decisions,  and  made  the  law,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, what  it  purports  to  be,  the  authoritative  expression  of  the  sense 
of  right  which  is  common  to  all  men.  The  passage  quoted  in  proof 
of  the  assertion  is  from  the  decision  in  the  Yazoo-land  case.  "The 
legislature  of  Georgia,"  says  the  judge,  "  was  a  party  to  this  transac- 
tion ;  and  for  a  party  to  pronounce  its  own  deed  invalid,  whatever 
reason  may  be  assigned  for  the  invalidity,  must  be  considered  a  mere 
act  of  power."  This  passage  bears  more  directly  upon  another  point, 
viz.,  the  right  of  this  body  to  pronounce  upon  the  validity  of  its  own 
act.  But  it  was  used  also  to  prove  that  rights  vested  under  an  uncon- 
stitutional act  are  valid.  It  is  asserted  that  even  had  the  act  of  Georgia 
in  question  been  unconstitutional,  according  to  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
the  sales  made  under  it  could  not  be  set  aside.  Before  looking  at  the 
report  from  which  this  sentence  is  quoted,  or  ascertaining  the  connec- 
tion in  which  it  occurs,  it  is  easy  to  point  out  the  fallacy  of  the  argu- 
ment founded  upon  it.  The  very  first  clause  assumes  that  the  legisla- 
ture of  Georgia  was  a  party  to  the  transaction — but  the  legislature  is 


892  CHURCH  POLITY. 

not  a  party  to  an  unconstitutional  law — such  a  law  is  not  an  act  of 
the  legislature,  it  is  the  unauthorized  act  of  a  number  of  individuals 
sitting  in  a  legislative  hall  and  going  through  certain  forms.  A  legis- 
lature is  the  agent  of  their  constituents ;  and  it  is  a  rule  of  law,  as 
well  as  of  justice,  that  the  deed  of  an  agent,  acting  under  written  in- 
structions, is  not  binding  on  his  principal,  if  it  be  done  in  direct  ""liola- 
tion  of  those  instructions.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  legislature  of 
Georgia,  or  rather  the  men  composing  it,  should,  in  secret  conclave, 
sell  their  whole  state,  with  all  its  inhabitants,  to  some  African  mon- 
arch ignorant  enough  to  make  such  a  bargain,  would  it  be  binding 
on  all  future  legislatures  to  the  end  of  time  ?  So  say  our  clerical 
jurists ;  but  it  is  a  shame  to  evoke  Chief  Justice  Marshall  to  deliver 
such  law  as  this.  Common  sense  would  say  that  the  African  king 
had  been  cheated,  but  not  that  the  state  of  Georgia  had  been  sold. 
If  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  turn  to  the  Report  the  gentleman 
has  quoted,  he  will  find  that  the  first  point  made  in  the  case  which  it 
details,  was,  Whether  the  state  of  Georgia  was  seized  of  the  lands  in 
question  at  the  time  of  the  sale  ?  The  second,  Did  the  constitution 
of  Georgia  prohibit  the  legislature  to  dispose  of  the  lands  ?  The  for- 
mer of  these  questions  the  court  decided  in  the  affirmative,  the  latter 
in  the  negative ;  and  it  is  ever  afterwards  assumed  throughout  the 
decision  that  Georgia  owned  the  lands,  and  that  the  legislature  had  a 
right  to  sell.  The  third  point  was.  Whether  this  legal  act  was  vitiated 
by  the  alleged  bribery  of  some  of  the  members  of  the  legislature? 
This  point  the  court  refused  to  go  into,  as  not  properly  before  them, 
and  because,  if  the  corruption  did  take  place,  it  could  only  vitiate  the 
contract  between  the  original  parties,  and  could  not  affect  the  rights 
of  innocent  bona  fide  purchasers.  The  fourth  point  was.  Whether  a 
subsequent  act  of  the  legislature,  setting  aside  this  legal  and  constitu- 
tional contract  of  their  predecessors,  was  valid  ?  which  was  decided  in 
the  negative.  This  case,  therefore,  proves  the  very  reverse  of  what  it 
was  cited  to  prove  "  If  the  title,"  says  Judge  Marshall,  "  be  plainly 
deduced  from  a  legislative  act,  which  the  legislature  might  constihition- 
ally  pass,  if  the  act  be  clothed  with  all  the  requisite  forms  of  law,  a 
court,  sitting  as  a  court  of  law,  cannot  sustain  a  suit  brought  by  one 
individual  against  another,  founded  on  the  allegation  that  the  act  is  a 
nullity,  in  consequence  of  the  impure  motives  which  influenced  certain 
members  of  the  legislature  which  passed  the  act."  It  is  here  assumed 
that  if  the  law  had  been  unconstitutional,  it  would  be  a  nullity,  the 
very  opposite  doctrine  to  that  which  the  report  is  cited  to  prove.  It 
requires,  however,  no  judge  to  tell  us  that  a  man  cannot  sell  what  he 
does  not  possess ;  that  he  cannot  convey  a  title  to  another  which  is  not 
in  himself;    or  that  an  unconstitutional  act  of  any  body  is  a  nullity. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.  393 

It  would  be  easy  to  cull  from  the  Digest  of  the  Reports  of  the  Supreme 
Court  hundreds  of  cases  in  "which  this  principle  is  asserted  or  assumed. 
Thus  the  court  say,  "  If  any  act  of  Congi-ess  or  of  a  legislature  of  a 
state  violates  the  constitutional  provisions,  it  is  unquestionably  void."* 
Again,  "an  act  of  Congress  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  never  can 
become  a  law  of  the  land."  Those  acts  which  are  of  the  nature  of  a 
contract  are  no  exception  to  this  rule.  The  case  in  Kentucky,  relating 
to  the  old  and  new  court,  is  a  case  of  this  kind.  Where  an  officer  is 
not  removable  at  the  will  of  the  appointing  power,  the  appointment  is 
not  revocable  and  cannot  be  annulled,  it  has  conferred  legal  rights 
which  cannot  be  resumed.f  The  act  of  the  state  ajDpointing  certain 
judges  was  therefore  of  the  nature  of  a  contract ;  the  moment,  how- 
ever, the  law  creating  the  court  to  which  it  belonged  was  declared  un- 
constitutional, the  contract  was  annulled,  and  the  judges  were  out  of 
office.  The  state  of  New  York  passed  a  law  of  the  nature  of  a  con- 
tract, conferring  on  Robert  R.  Livingston  and  Robert  Fulton  certain 
privileges.  This  law  was  pronounced  unconstitutional,!  and  the  con- 
tract was  rendered  void.  The  act  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
altering  the  charter  of  Dartmouth  College,  was  of  the  same  nature ; 
yet  when  the  law  was  pronounced  unconstitutional,  all  the  appoint- 
ments and  contracts  made  under  it  were  swept  away.  There  are,  no 
doubt,  often  cases  of  great  hardship  under  the  operation  of  this  principle ; 
and  therefore  special  provision  is  generally  made  for  them,  either  by 
enactments  of  the  legislature,  or  by  the  courts  of  equity.  The  princi- 
ple itself,  however,  is  one  of  the  most  obviously  just  and  universally 
recognized  in  the  whole  compass  of  jurisprudence.  It  would  indeed  be 
a  deplorable  thing  if  a  legislative  body,  in  defiance  of  the  constitution, 
could,  under  the  influence  of  passion  or  self-interest,  bargain  away  the 
rights,  liberties  and  property  of  their  constituents,  and,  under  the  plea 
of  the  sacredness  of  the  contract,  entail  the  bargain  on  all  their  suc- 
cessors. 

Even  admitting  then  that  the  plan  of  union  adopted  in  1801  was  of 
the  nature  of  a  contract,  yet  if  the  plan  is  unconstitutional  it  is  void ; 
it  has  existed  hitherto  only  by  sufferance,  and  may  at  any  time  be  set 
aside.  There  is,  however,  an  unfairness  in  this  mode  of  presenting  the 
case.  The  plan  of  union  is  not  a  contract  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
word ;  nor  have  absolute  rights  vested  under  it  according  to  the  com- 
mon use  of  those  terms.  "  The  provision  of  the  constitution  [of  the 
United  States  respecting  contracts]  never  has,"  says  Judge  IMarshall, 
"  been  understood  to  embrace  other  contracts  than  those  which  respect 
property,  or  some  object  of  value,  and  which  confer  rights  which  may 

*  See  Cox's  Digest,  p.  168.  f  Ibid.  p.  169.  %  Ibid.  p.  177. 


394  CHURCH  POLITY. 

be  asserted  in  a  court  of  justice."  *  The  plan  of  union  is  little  else 
than  a  declaration,  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly,  that  it  will  recognize 
churches  organized  in  a  certain  way.  The  connection  thus  formed  was 
perfectly  voluntary ;  one  which  either  party  might  dissolve  at  pleasure. 
Should  these  churches  meet  and  resolve  to  break  off  the  connection, 
Presbyterians  would  make  no  difficulty  about  vested  rights  and  the 
sacredness  of  a  compact.  But  this  is  a  point  we  need  not  urge,  admit- 
ting the  act  to  be  of  the  nature  of  a  contract,  still,  if  unconstitutional,  it 
is  void,  and  imposes  no  obligation  on  future  Assemblies.  It  is,  therefore, 
only  by  the  application  of  legal  principles  to  a  case  to  which  they  do 
not  refer,  that  any  plausibility  can  be  given  to  the  arguments  by  which 
this  resolution  has  been  so  strenuously  assailed.  We  are  not  about  to 
pass  an  ex  post  facto  law,  nor  to  interfere  with  the  vested  rights  of  any 
set  of  men,  but  simply  to  declare  that  the  voluntary  connection  into 
which  we  entered  by  the  plan  of  union  with  certain  churches,  is  dis- 
solved. These  churches  rest  upon  this  plan ;  if  the  plan  be  removed, 
these  churches  are  removed  with  it.  What  can  be  the  meaning  of  the 
act  of  abrogation,  if  it  is  not  to  break  off  the  anomalous  and  unconsti- 
tutional connection,  which  it  effected  between  us  and  the  accommoda- 
tion churches?  If  Congress,  twenty  years  ago,  had  formed  a  treaty,  by 
which,  in  despite  of  the  constitution,  Canada  and  Mexico  were  allowed 
to  send  delegates  to  our  national  councils,  would  not  the  abrogation  of 
that  treaty  put  an  end  at  once  to  the  connection  ?  And  would  the  com- 
plaint about  vested  rights  excite  any  sympathy  where  the  case  was 
known  and  understood  ? 

It  has  been  asked  what  would  be  thought  of  a  state,  which,  by  an 
unconstitutional  law,  should  invite  missionaries  to  come  and  labour  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Indians,  assuring  them  of  their  protection,  and 
granting  them  many  privileges,  and  after  houses  and  towns  had  been 
built,  and  the  process  of  civilization  been  going  on  for  years,  should,  on 
the  plea  of  the  invalidity  of  the  law,  without  process  or  trial,  proceed 
to  imprison  the  missionaries,  break  up  the  settlement,  and  hang  the  In- 
dians. It  requires  the  utmost  stretch  of  charity  to  believe  that  such 
an  illustration  is  deemed  pertinent  even  by  its  author,  or  that  it  has 
any  other  design  than  to  cast  odium  upon  the  members  of  this  house. 
Let  the  case  be  fairly  stated,  and  we  are  willing  to  submit  it  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  enlightened  consciences  of  all  good  men.  Suppose  then 
that  a  state  government  had  extended  its  protecting  and  fostering  hand 
over  the  tribes  on  our  borders,  and  granted  them  privileges  incon- 
sistent with  the  constitution,  allowing  them  the  right  of  representation, 
and  an  equal  voice  in  making  the  laws  of  the  state  to  which  these  tribes 

*  Wheaton's  Reports,  vol.  iv.  p.  629. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWEE  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         395 

themselves  were  not  amenable;  and  that  in  the  course  of  years  they 
had  so  increased  as  nearly  to  outnumber  the  legal  inhabitants,  would 
any  good  and  honest  man  think  it  wrong  for  that  state  to  say  to  these 
tribes,  "  You  are  now  sufficiently  numerous  and  strong  to  subsist  by 
yourselves ;  you  have  flourishing  settlements  and  abundant  resources ; 
we  have  given  you  the  privilege  of  sitting  in  our  councils  and  of  mak- 
ing laws  for  us  long  enough  to  teach  you  the  nature  of  our  system, 
which  you  deliberately  reject;  your  institutions  and  habits  are  different 
from  ours ;  your  ideas  of  government  are  inconsistent  with  our  system ; 
the  influence  which  you  are  exerting  upon  us  we  believe  to  be  destruc- 
tive ;  it  is  time  we  should  part ;  we  leave  you  all  your  settlements,  all 
your  resources ;  we  desire  to  live  at  peace  with  you,  and  see  you  pros- 
per, but  we  wish  that  you  should  cease  to  make  our  laws  or  administer 
them  upon  us,  seeing  you  will  not  submit  to  them  yourselves.''  Is  this 
a  proposition  to  be  compared  to  robbery  and  murder?  Would  the 
state  which  should  use  such  language  be  worthy  of  universal  abhor- 
ence?  Must  its  name  be  written  "  in  letters  of  Egyptian  midnight," 
for  the  execration  of  all  ages  ?  With  what  regard  to  candour  or  Chris- 
tian feeling  then  can  such  obloquy  be  poured  on  the  measure  under 
consideration,  or  upon  those  who  advocate  it  ?  We  are  neither  robbers 
nor  murderers.  We  take  away  no  man's  rights.  We  simply  maintain 
our  own  indefeasible  right  to  self-government,  and  refuse  to  be  gov- 
erned by  men  who  will  not  submit  to  the  system  they  administer. 

The  next  question  to  be  decided  is,  whether,  admitting  the  unconsti- 
tutionality of  the  plan  of  union,  and  that  the  churches  formed  upon  it 
are  now  no  part  of  our  Church,  does  this  authorize  the  declaration  that 
the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  is  no  longer  connected  with  this 
body  ?  We  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative.  According  to  tlie 
constitution  of  our  Church,  "  As  a  presbytery  is  a  convention  of  the 
bishops  and  elders  within  a  certain  district :  so  a  synod  is  a  convention 
of  the  bishops  and  elders  within  a  larger  district,  including  at  least 
three  presbyteries."*  The  question  then  is,  are  these  presbyteries  or 
this  synod  conventions  of  bishops  and  elders  ?  This  question  has  been 
already  answered.  They  are  not  such  conventions.  They  are  com- 
posed of  a  few  pastors  and  elders  of  Presbyterian  churches,  and  a  large 
number  of  the  pastors  and  lay  members  of  Congregational  churches. 
There  is  less  than  one  of  the  former  class  to  four  of  the  latter.  It  is 
obvious,  therefore,  that  these  are  not  constitutional  bodies.  They  are 
not  in  the  Church  in  virtue  of  the  constitution.  They  are  connected 
with  us  simply  in  virtue  of  the  plan  of  union,  and  consequently  when 
this  plan  is  removed  this  connection  ceases. 

*  Form  of  Goiernment,  chap.  ix.  sect.  1. 


396  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Again  on  tlie  supposition  that  after  all  these  accommodation  churches 
are  disconnected  with  this  body,  the  presbyteries  and  synod  still  retain 
their  connection,  we  should  have  presbyteries  and  a  synod  composed 
almost  entirely  of  ministers.  These  are  not  regular  Presbyterian  bodies. 
If  ten  or  twelve  of  our  ministers  were  to  go  into  New  England,  and 
engage  in  teaching,  or  connect  themselves  with  Congregational  churcjies, 
no  synod  could  constitutionally  form  them  into  a  presbytery.  And  if 
they  had  been  thus  formed,  this  body  would  not  be  bound  to  recognize 
them.  Synods  have  indeed  the  right  to  make  presbyteries,  but  they 
are  restricted  by  the  constitution  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  to  make 
them  out  of  Presbyterian  ministers  and  elders.  It  is  said,  however, 
that  since  there  are  regular  churches  and  pastors  within  the  limits 
embraced  by  these  bodies,  they  are  presbyteries  and  a  synod  within  the 
meaning  of  the  constitution.  The  fallacy  of  this  argument  is  obvious. 
These  materials  are  indeed  included  within  the  synod,  but  do  not  con- 
stitute it.  A  number  of  Presbyterian,  Episcopal  and  Methodist  minis- 
ters and  churches  could  never  constitutionally  be  formed  into  a  synod 
in  our  Church.  If  such  an  anomalous  body  were  ever  recognized  as  a 
synod,  it  must  be  by  some  special  arrangement.  The  question  would 
then  come  up,  is  this  arrangement  constitutional  ?  And  as  soon  as  this 
question  is  authoritatively  decided  in  the  negative,  the  irregular  synod 
would  be  disowned.  As  to  the  objection  that  a  minister  becomes,  by 
his  ordination  by  a  regular  presbytery,  a  member  of  our  Church,  and 
that  we  have  no  right  to  declare  that  he  is  not  a  member,  we  answer, 
it  is  admitted  he  is  a  member  as  long  as  he  continues  connected  with  a 
regular  presbytery.  If,  howcA^er,  he  joins  a  Congregational  Associa- 
tion, he  is  no  longer  a  member  of  our  Church,  and  if  he  joins  a  body 
connected  with  us  by  some  special  tie,  he  ceases  to  be  a  member  as  soon 
as  that  tie  is  sundered. 

Having  now  proved  that  the  oj)eration  of  the  decision  of  this  house 
on  the  plan  of  union  is  to  sever  our  connection  with  the  churches 
formed  upon  it,  and  that  the  organization  of  the  Synod  of  the  West- 
ern Reserve  is  also  pronounced  by  that  decision  to  be  unconstitutional, 
the  only  question  is,  whether  this  Assembly  has  a  right  to  make  the 
declaration  contained  in  the  resolution  under  debate  ?  We  do  not  see 
how  this  point  can  be  doubted.  If  the  fact  is  so ;  if  that  synod  is 
not  formed  on  a  constitutional  basis,  it  must  be  competent  for  this 
house  to  say  so.  We  are  both  a  legislative  and  judicial  body.  It  is 
the  province  of  a  legislature  to  decide  what  the  laws  shall  be,  and  of  a 
court  to  decide  what  they  are.  We  have  both  these  prerogatives.  We 
can  not  only  repeal  the  acts  of  former  Assemblies,  but  if  those  acts  are 
brought  up  by  appeal,  reference,  or  resolution,  we  can  examine  and 
decide  whether  or  not  they  are  consistent  with  the  constitution. 


'      \ 

THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SlTPERINTENDENCE.        397 

It  "will  be  remembered  that  the  Assembly  of  1835  forced  a  com-  ,^ 
pact  ■with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  in  reference  to  the  Western  Foreign  /\ 
Missionary  Society ;  which  the  Assembly  of  1836  felt  no  scniples  in 
declaring  unconstitutional.  The  power  of  the  Assembly  to  decide  on 
the  validity  of  its  own  acts  was  not  then  called  in  question.  Chief 
Justice  Marshall's  oj)iuion  that  a  party  to  a  contract  cannot  pronounce 
its  own  act  invalid,  had  not  yet  been  discovered.  The  question  has 
come  up  before  this  Assembly,  whether  the  act  of  1801,  adopting  the 
jilan  of  union,  is  constitutional?  And  it  has  been  decided  in  the 
negative.  This  resolution  brings  up  the  question,  whether  the  act  of 
1825,  erecting  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  on  the  basis  of  that 
plan  is  constitutional  ?  Whatever  doubt  there  may  be  as  to  the  deci- 
sion, there  can  be  none  as  to  the  power  of  this  house  to  make  it. 

It  is  asked,  what  would  be  thought  if  Congress  should  declare  a  sove- 
reign State  out  of  the  Union  ?  There  are  two  false  assumptions  im- 
plied in  this  question.  The  first  is,  that  the  judicial  and  legislative 
power  are  united  in  Congress  as  they  are  in  this  body,  which  notori- 
ously is  not  the  case.  The  second  is,  that  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  is  regularly  in  the  Church,  and  that  we  are  about  to  cut  it  off 
by  a  simple  legislative  act.  This  is  not  the  fact.  We  are  not  about 
to  cut  off  a  regular  synod  for  heresy,  which  we  admit,  in  all  ordinary 
cases,  would  require  a  regular  process.  AVe  are  simply  about  to  de- 
clare that  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1825,  constituting  certain  pres- 
byteries composed  almost  exclusively  of  Congregational  churches,  was 
unconstitutional  and  void.  We  are  about  to  say  that  a  convention  of 
Presbyterian  ministers  and  of  Congregational  laymen,  is  not  a  conven- 
tion of  Presbyterian  bishops  and  ruling  elders,  and  that  no  act  of  any 
General  Assembly  can  make  it  so.  When  a  state  applies  for  admis- 
sion into  the  Union,  the  question,  whether  it  is  organized  in  a  manner 
consistently  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  is  always  pre- 
sented. Should  this  question  be  decided  afiirmatively  by  Congress, 
and  this  decision  be  subsequently  reversed  by  the  competent  tribunal, 
the  effect  would,  of  course,  be  to  throw  the  state  out  of  the  Union,  or 
rather,  to  declare  that  it  never  was  constitutionally  a  member.  The 
only  difference  between  such  a  case  and  the  one  before  us  is,  that  the 
legislative  and  judicial  functions  in  our  civil  government  are  divided ; 
whereas  they  are  united  in  this  house  by  the  constitution  under  which 
we  act. 

The  objection,  therefore,  which  has  been  urged  against  the  compe- 
tency of  this  house,  on  the  ground  that  a  party  to  a  compact  cannot 
declare  its  own  act  invalid,  admits  of  several  satisfactory  answers.  In 
the  first  place,  the  acts  forming  the  plan  of  union  and  erecting  this 
synod  are  not  properly  of  the  nature  of  a  contract.      They  are  simple 


398  CHUECH  POLITY. 

legislative  acts  whicli  this  Louse  is  authorized  to  repeal.  In  the  second 
place,  an  unconstitutional  act  of  a  body,  is  not  and  cannot  be  binding 
on  its  successors.  It  is  not  properly  the  act  of  the  body,  as  has  al- 
ready been  shown.  Consequently  even  if  the  acts  referred  to  were  of 
the  nature  of  a  contract,  they  would  be  as  devoid  of  any  authority  as 
an  act  of  this  Assembly  to  sell  the  United  States.  And  in  the  third 
place,  in  virtue  of  the  constitution  of  our  Church  we  have  judicial  as 
well  as  legislative  power,  and  it  is  our  appropriate  business  to  review 
all  decisions  of  this  or  any  of  our  judicatories  when  brought  properly 
before  us. 

There  is  another  principle  on  which  this  resolution  may  be  justified. 
Every  Church  or  community  has  the  right  to  prescribe  its  own  terms 
of  membership ;  and  its  judicatories  must  be  authorized  to  decide 
whether  these  terms  in  any  disputed  case  are  complied  with  or  not.  It 
is  on  this  principle  that  we  sit  in  judgment  on  the  qualifications  of  our 
own  members,  and  vacate  the  seat  of  any  commissioner  whom  we  find 
not  to  be  duly  qualified.  And  on  the  same  principle  we  have  a  right 
to  decide  whether  a  presbytery  or  synod  is  constitutionally  organized  ; 
in  other  words,  whether  it  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  Church.  For  an 
unconstitutional  body  has  no  more  right  to  a  standing  in  our  Church, 
than  a  state  Avith  a  monarchical  form  of  Government  has  a  right  to  a 
standing  in  our  national  Union.  In  making  the  declaration  contained 
in  this  resolution,  therefore,  we  are  assuming  no  irregular  or  unreason- 
able power,  we  are  passing  no  ex  post  facto  law,  we  are  depriving  no 
body  of  men  of  their  vested  rights.  The  only  real  question  for  debate 
is,  is  the  declaration  true  ?  Is  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  con- 
stitutionally organized  ?  If  it  is  not,  it  has  no  more  right  here  than  an 
Episcopal  convention. 

We  come  now  to  the  question  of  expediency.  It  is  urged  against 
the  measure  proposed  that  it  will  produce  the  most  disastrous  results. 
It  will  invalidate  the  licensures,  ordinations  and  judicial  acts  of  all 
these  presbyteries,  and  unsettle  the  title  to  Church  property  in  all  that 
region  of  country.  Even  if  all  these  consequences  were  to  flow  from 
the  passage  of  this  resolution,  it  would  not  alter  the  state  of  the  case. 
If  that  synod  is  not  a  synod,  it  is  not  a  synod,  no  matter  what  the  con- 
sequences may  be  of  admitting  and  declaring  the  truth.  But  these 
evils  are  all  fears  of  the  imagination.  No  man's  licensure,  ordination 
or  Church  standing  will  be  affected  by  this  measure.  This  Assembly 
acknowledges  the  validity  of  the  licensures,  ordinations,  and  judicial 
acts  of  Congregational  associations  and  councils,  why  then  should  it 
cease  to  acknowledge  such  acts  of  these  irregular  presbyteries  ?  As  to 
the  Church  property,  we  do  not  believe  a  single  farthing  will  pass  out 
of  the  hands  of  its  present  holders.     This  General  Assembly  does  not 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         399 

hold  the  property  of  these  churches,  nor  do  its  owners  hold  it  in  virtue 
of  their  connection  with  this  Assembly.  If  in  any  particular  case  the 
title  supposes  or  requires  the  holders  to  be  Presbyterians,  it  proves  that 
those  who  gave  the  property  wished  it  to  be  so  held  ;  and  it  can  be  for- 
feited only  by  the  present  holders  becoming  Congregationalists.  It  is 
said  too  that  this  measure  will  operate  hardly  upon  regular  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  and  churches  connected  with  the  synod.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  this  body  can  act,  in  this  case,  only  on  the 
synod,  or  the  body  as  a  whole.  If  there  is  any  portion  of  its  presby- 
teries or  congregations  who  wish  to  be  connected  with  this  Assembly, 
they  can  become  regularly  organized  and  effect  the  union  without  de- 
lay. 


We  believe  then  this  whole  case  to  be  exceedingly  plain.  The  plan 
of  union,  on  which  the  churches  of  this  synod  are  in  general  formed, 
we  believe  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  that  its  abrogation  severs  the 
only  tie  by  which  they  were  connected  with  this  body.  We  believe 
that  the  act  by  which  this  synod  was  organized  is  also  unconstitutional 
and  void,  and  that,  from  the  nature  of  our  system  and  the  constitution 
of  our  Church,  it  is  the  rightful  prerogative  of  this  house  to  pronounce 
these  acts  to  be  invalid,  and  that  the  necessary  operation  of  this  deci- 
sion is  to  declare  the  churches  of  this  synod  not  to  be  a  constituent  por- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  feel  bound  to  make  this  decla- 
ration, because  it  is  true,  and  because,  while  it  deprives  no  man  of  his 
ministerial  or  Christian  standing,  and  robs  no  one  either  of  his  property 
or  rights,  it  relieves  us  from  a  source  of  error  and  disorder  which  is 
distracting  the  peace,  and  destroying  the  purity  of  the  Church.  We 
do  no  man  injustice  by  declaring  that  Congregationalists  are  not  Pres- 
byterians, and  have  no  right  to  take  part  in  the  government  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

After  the  resolution  declaring  the  Western  Reserve  Synod  not  to  be 
a  constituent  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  been  adopted,  it  was 
decided  that  the  commissioners  from  the  presbyteries  included  within 
that  synod,  were  not  entitled  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  Assembly.  Their 
names  were  consequently  omitted  when  the  roll  was  called. 

c.  Report  on  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville.  [*] 

[  Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  pp.  246-262,  603.] 

That  report  is  so  long  that  we  cannot  insert  it  at  length.     It  is 

[*  From  Article  on  "The.  General  Assembbj,'"  same  topic,  Princeton  Review,  1866, 
p.  486. 


400  CHURCH  POLITY. 

drawn  up  with  marked  ability,  and  presents  the  case  against  the  Louis- 
ville Presbytery  in  the  strongest  light.  We  do  not  think  that  any 
speech  or  document  on  that  side  of  the  question  presents  so  plausible 
an  argument  in  defence  of  the  proposed  action  of  the  Assembly. 

It  states  that  three  subjects  had  been  committed  to  their  consideration.  1.  To 
examine  and  report  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville.  2. 
To  inquire  whether  the  said  presbytery,  in  view  of  the  action  referred  to,  is  en- 
titled to  a  seat  in  this  Assembly.  3.  To  recommend  what  action,  if  any,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  should  take  in  the  premises. 

Under  the  first  head,  the  committee  give  an  analysis  of  the  Declaration  and 
Testimony.  Under  the  second  they  urge  that  the  commissioners  of  the  presbytery 
should  be  debarred  from  sitting  in  the  Assembly,  because  it  was  discretionary  to 
suspend  from  the  privilege  of  a  seat  in  a  judicatory  the  parties  who  were  under 
process.  The  presbytery  was  under  process  from  the  time  the  Assembly  appointed 
a  committee  to  examine  into  the  action.  Under  the  tliird  head,  the  committee  re- 
commend the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions  : 

Se  it  Resolved  b-y  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  TJnitedk 
States  of  America : 

First.  That  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville  be,  and  hereby  is,  dissolved  ;  and  that 
the  custody  of  its  records,  papers,  and  other  property  be  transferred  as  hereinafter 
ordered. 

Second.  That  a  new  presbytery  be  and  is  hereby  constituted,  to  be  known  by 
the  same  name,  occupy  the  same  territory,  and  have  watch  and  care  of  the  same 
churches ;  said  presbytery  to  be  composed  of  the  following  ministers,  (together 
with  so  many  elders  as  may  appear,)  viz. :  Rev.  D.  T.  Stuart,  W.  W.  Hill,  S. 
"Williams,  W.  C.  Matthews,  R.  Valentine,  B.  H.  McCown,  J.  H.  Dinsmore,  H.  C. 
Sachse,  T.  A.  Hoyt,  J.  L.  McKee,  J.  P.  McMillan,  J.  McCrae,  H.  T.  Morton,  J. 
C.  Young,  or  so  many  of  them,  whether  ministers  or  ruling  elders,  as  shall,  before 
their  organization,  subscribe  the  following  formula,  viz. :  ''  I  do  hereby  profess  my 
disapproval  of  the  Declaration  and  Testimony  adopted  by  the  late  Presbytery  of 
Louisville,  and  my  obedience  in  the  Lord  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States,"  which  formula,  together  with  the  subscribers' 
names,  shall  be  subsequently  entered  upon  these  records.  The  said  presbytery 
shall  meet  in  the  Chestnut  street  Church,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on 
the  20th  day  of  June,  18G6,  at  the  hour  of  eleven  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  ^hall  be 
opened  with  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  J.  P.  McMillan,  or  in  his  absence,  the  oldest 
minister  present,  who  shall  preside  until  a  Moderator  is  chosen. 

Third.  That  so  many  ministers  belonging  to  the  late  Presbytery  of  Loui  sville 
as  are  not  herein  named,  are  hereby  directed  to  apply  for  admission  to  the  pre  sby- 
tery  now  constituted,  as  soon  after  its  organization  as  practicable,  and  they  shall 
be  received  only  on  condition  of  acknowledging  before  the  presbytery  their  error 
in  adopting  or  signing  the  Declaration  and  Testimony,  and  of  subscribing  the 
aforesaid  formr.la  on  its  records.  If  at  the  expiration  of  two  months  from  the 
organization  of  the  new  presbytery,  these  ministers  shall  not  have  made  such  ap- 
plication, or  shall  not  have  been  received,  their  pastoral  relations,  so  far  as  any 
may  exist  with  the  churches  under  our  care,  shall  thenceforth  be  ipso  facto 
dissolved. 

Fourth.  That  the  licentiates  and  candidates  under  the  care  of  the  dissolved 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.         401 

presbytery  are  hereby  transferred  to  that  now  constituted,  and  the  stated  clerk 
of  the  late  presbytery  is  hereby  directed  to  place  the  records  and  other  papers  of 
the  said  presbytery  in  the  hands  of  the  stated  clerk  of  the  presbytery  now  con- 
stituted, as  soon  as  such  clerk  shall  be  chosen. 

Fifth.  That  this  General  Assembly,  in  thus  dealing  with  a  recusant  and  rebel- 
lious presbytery,  by  virtue  of  the  plenary  authority  existing  in  it  for  "suppressing 
schismatical  contentions  and  disputations,"  has  no  intention  or  disposition  to  dis- 
turb the  existing  relation  of  churches,  ruling  elders,  or  private  members,  but  rather 
to  protect  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  and  privileges  in  the  church  of 
their  choice,  against  men  who  would  seduce  them  into  an  abandonment  of  the 
heritage  of  their  fathers. 


Dr.  Gurley's  paper,  which  was  presented  as  a  substitute  for  the  resolution 
recommended  by  the  committee,  was  adopted  by  the  vote,  yeas,  196 ;  nays,  37. 
Declined  to  vote,  J.  H.  Brookes,  1.     The  paper  is  as  follows : 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  General  Assembly  does  hereby  condemn  the  Declaration 
and  Testimony,  as  a  slander  against  the  Church,  schismatical  in  its  character  and 
aims,  and  its  adoption  by  any  of  our  Church  courts  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against 
the  authority  of  the  General  Assembly. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  whole  subject  contemplated  in  this  report,  including  the 
report  itself,  be  referred  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 

3.  Resolved,  That  the  signers  of  the  "  Declaration  and  Testimony,"  and  the 
members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville  who  voted  to  adopt  that  paper,  be  sum- 
moned, and  they  are  hereby  summoned,  to  appear  before  the  next  General  Assem- 
bly, to  answer  for  what  they  have  done  in  this  matter,  and  that  until  their  case  ia 
decided,  they  shall  not  be  permitted  to  sit  as  members  of  any  Church  court  higher 
than  the  session. 

4.  Resolved,  That  if  any  presbytery  shall  disregard  this  action  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  at  any  meeting  shall  enroll,  as  entitled  to  a  seat  or  seats  in  the 
body,  one  or  more  of  the  persons  designated  in  the  preceding  resolution  and  sum- 
moned to  appear  before  the  next  General  Assembly,  then  that  presbytery  shall 
ipso /acto  be  dissolved,  and  its  ministers  and  elders  who  adhere  to  this  action  of 
tlie  Assembly,  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed,  in  such  cases,  to  take  charge  of 
the  presbyterial  records,  to  retain  the  name,  and  exercise  all  the  authority  and 
functions  of  the  original  presbytery,  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

5.  Resolved,  That  synods,  at  their  next  stated  meetings,  in  making  up  their 
rolls,  shall  be  guided  and  governed  by  this  action  of  the  General  Assembly. 


Every  attentive  reader  of  the  minutes  and  reported  debates  of  the 
last  Assembly  must  be  aware  that  in  all  that  concerns  the  action  of 
the  Assembly  in  regard  to  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville  and  its  com- 
missioners, there  are  three  distinct  points  for  consideration.  First,  had 
the  Assembly  the  constitutional  right  to  exclude  these  commissioners 
from  a  seat  in  the  Assembly  until  their  case  was  decided  ;  and  had  it 
the  right  to  dissolve  that  presbytery  as  was  proposed  by  the  committee ; 
26 


402  CHUECH  POLITY. 

or  to  dissolve  other  presbyteries  on  the  contingency  provided  for  in  the 
paper  of  Dr.  Gurley,  which  was  finally  adopted  ?  The  second  question 
is,  assuming  that  the  Assembly  had  the  right  to  do  what  it  did,  was 
there  any  sufficient  reason  for  its  action?  Did  the  Presbytery  of 
Louisville  merit  exclusion  from  the  Assembly  ?  The  third  question 
relates  to  the  manner  in  which  these  things  were  done.  There  may  be 
a  right  and  wrong,  a  kind  or  unkind,  a  fair  or  unfair  way  of  doing 
what  in  itself  is  just  and  proper. 

The  first  of  these  questions  alone  has  any  permanent  importance. 
It  is  comparatively  a  small  matter  that  a  court  should  inflict  an  unduly 
severe  penalty ;  or  that  the  judge  should  be  harsh  and  overbearing  in 
his  spirit  and  manner,  provided  he  has  the  law  on  his  side.  It  was  not 
the  hardship  to  Dred  Scott,  as  a  man,  or  any  want  of  courtesy  on  the 
part  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  caused  its  decision  in  that  case  to 
shake  the  country  like  an  earthquake.  It  was  that  the  decision  itself 
was  in  conflict  with  the  long-cherished  and  settled  convictions  of  the 
people  as  to  what  was  the  true  law  of  the  land.  As  to  the  first  of  the 
three  questions  proposed  for  consideration,  it  may  be  remarked  that 
there  are  three  different  theories  as  to  the  nature  of  our  Presbyterian 
system  ;  all  of  which  were  advanced  on  the  floor  of  the  late  Assembly, 
and  each  of  which  controlled  the  opinions  and  votes  of  those  who 
adopted  it. 

The  first  is  derived  very  much  (as  it  seems  to  us)  from  an  assumed 
analogy  between  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  that  of  the 
Church.  In  our  national  and  state  governments,  the  constitution  is  a 
grant  of  powers.  Congress  has  no  power  which  is  not  specified  in  the 
constitution  ;  all  others  are  expressly  reserved  to  the  states  or  to  the 
people.  In  like  manner,  as  many  assume,  the  Presbyteries  are  the 
source  of  power  in  the  Church.  The  Assembly  has  no  power  not  ex- 
pressly granted  by  the  presbyteries  in  the  constitution.  And  hence 
the  demand  was  so  frequently  and  earnestly  made  for  a  reference  to 
chapter  and  section,  where  the  power  to  exclude  commissioners,  or  to 
act  immediately  on  a  presbytery,  was  granted. 

The  second  theory  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme.  It  assumes  that 
the  Assembly  is  the  source  of  power  to  the  other  courts.  Having  all 
Church-power  in  itself,  it  has  delegated  a  certain  portion  of  its  fulness 
to  synods,  presbyteries,  and  sessions.  This  was  the  doctrine  for  which 
the  authority  of  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  and  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Pennsylvania  was  quoted,  especially  by  Hon.  Mr.  Galloway.  A  much 
higher  authority  might  have  been  derived  from  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land. 

The  third  view  is  that  which,  we  presume,  is  held  by  the  great  body 
of  Presbyterians.     It  assumes,  1.  That  all  Church  power  is  derived 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWEE  OF  SUPEEtNTENDENCE.  403 

from  Christ  and  conveyed  in  tis  word,  and  by  his  Spirit.  2,  That 
this  power  belongs  to  the  whole  Church,  not  to  the  clergy  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  people,  nor  to  the  people  to  the  exclusion  of  the  clergy. 
3.  That  it  inheres  in  the  Church,  as  the  body  of  Christ,  and,  by  his  ap- 
pointment, is  to  be  exercised  through  certain  office-bearers,  who  act  as 
its  representatives  and  organs.  4.  These  office-bearers  are  selected, 
qualified,  and  called  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  5.  It  is  the  function  of  the 
Church  to  authenticate  this  call  of  the  Spirit,  and  to  certify  it  as  its 
judgment,  to  the  people.  This  is  done  in  ordination.  6.  The  office- 
bearers of  a  Church,  therefore,  are  that  Church,  i.  e.,  they  are  author- 
ized and  empowered,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  Church  to  exercise 
all  the  power  which  Christ  has  given  it  for  edification.  Hence  the 
session  of  au  individual  church  is  authorized  to  do  whatever  an  indi- 
vidual church  may  do,  in  the  reception  of  members,  in  the  exercise  of 
discipline,  and  in  the  instruction  and  spiritual  nurture  of  the  peo- 
ple. So  the  presbytery  is  vested  with  the  power  of  the  Church  within 
its  limits.  It  is  the  representative,  organ,  and  agent  of  the  collective 
body  of  Christ's  people  included  within  its  ecclesiastical  limits.  The 
same  is  true  of  synods,  assemblies,  or  other  general  councils.  These 
Church  courts  in  no  case  derive  their  powers  from  the  constitution. 
They  possessed  them  before  the  constitution  was  framed,  and  would 
continue  to  possess  them  although  it  was  entirely  abolished.  A  num- 
ber of  Christians  organizing  themselves  into  a  Church,  and  electing 
Church  officers,  would  of  course  have  the  power  which  Christ  has 
given  to  his  Church  ;  the  power  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  candi- 
dates for  admission  to  Christian  ordinances ;  to  exercise  discipline, 
and  to  provide  for  the  edification  of  the  people.  The  presbytery  has, 
in  like  manner,  independently  of  any  written  or  human  constitution, 
all  the  power  which  Christ  has  given  to  a  presbytery, — the  right  to 
ordain,  the  right  to  suspend  and  depose  from  the  sacred  ministry  ;  and 
the  right  to  exercise  all  the  functions  of  a  Church  within  its  own 
limits.  The  constitution  is  only  a  treaty,  or  a  set  of  stipulations,  as  to 
how  these  several  Church  courts  shall  exercise  the  powers  which  they 
derive  from  Christ.  The  presbytery,  for  example,  has  the  right  to  or- 
dain, but  it  has  agreed  with  other  presbjrteries  not  to  ordain  any  can- 
didate who  has  not  received  a  classical  education.  That  is,  as  the 
Scriptures  require  that  a  minister  must  be  apt  to  teach,  the  presbyte- 
ries have  bound  themselves  to  regard  a  liberal  education  as  one  evidence 
that  the  candidate  possesses  that  qualification.  Again,  the  Bible  requires 
that  a  minister  should  be  sound  in  the  faith,  able  to  resist  gainsayers ; 
the  presbyteries  have  agreed  to  make  the  sincere  adoption  of  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession  a  test  of  such  sound- 
ness.    The  constitution  therefore,  instead  of  being  a  grant  of  powers, 


404  CHURCH  POLITY. 

is  a  limitation  of  tliem,  so  far  as  their  exercise  is  concerned.  It  ties  the 
hands  of  all  the  Church  courts,  and  prevents  their  doing  many  things 
which  otherwise  they  would  have  a  perfect  right  to  do.  All  this  is 
reasonable  and  just.  It  is  necessary  to  secure  harmony,  peace,  and 
purity.  If  one  presbytery  assumed  one  standard  of  ability  to  teach, 
or  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  another  another ;  the  utmost  confusion 
and  conflict  would  be  produced.  Besides,  a  minister  ordained  by  one 
presbytery  becomes  a  minister  of  the  whole  Church,  and  exercises  in 
the  higher  courts  a  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  body.  The  whole  body, 
therefore,  has  an  interest  in  his  being  suitably  qualified,  and  a  right  to 
a  voice  in  securing  that  end. 

According  to  this  theory  every  Church  court  has  within  its  limits  all 
Church  power.  The  power  of  presbyters  is  given  to  presbyters,  inheres 
in  them,  and  is  not  delegated  to  them.  It  can  be  exercised  by  them, 
whenever  they  are  properly  associated  and  organized  for  the  exercise 
of  their  functions.  A  commander-in-chief  of  an  army  can  command  a 
regiment  or  a  company.  In  cases  of  emergency  he  does  assume  such 
command.  It  is  only  on  rare  occasions  that  this  is  either  expedient  or 
possible.  He  has  too  much  to  do,  to  allow  of  his  taking  into  his  own 
hands  the  duties  of  his  subordinates.  In  the  state,  the  care  of  children 
is  properly  left  to  their  own  parents.  But  in  the  case  of  orphans,  or 
when  the  parents  are  untrustworthy,  the  courts  interfere,  and  the  chil- 
dren become  wards  in  chancery.  The  court  performs  toward  them  the 
duty  of  parents.  Our  General  Assembly  has  examined  a  minister,  on 
his  knowledge  of  experimental  religion,  and  his  qualifications  for  the 
sacred  office,  and  received  him  as  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  good  standing.  Of  course  the  cases  are  extremely  rare  in 
which  the  higher  courts  are  justified  in  assuming  the  functions  of  the 
lower  bodies,  but,  so  far  as  the  power  to  do  so  is  concerned,  we  do  not 
see  how  it  can  be  questioned.  If  three  presbyters  have  from  God  the 
right  to  ordain  or  depose,  why  should  not  three  hundred  have  the  same 
power  ?  Our  church  in  the  early  period  of  its  history  uniformly  acted 
on  this  principle.  When  the  original  Presbytery  passed  into  a  Synod, 
the  Synod  continued  to  exercise  presbyterial  powers,  in  appointing  com- 
missions to  license,  to  ordain,  to  visit  churches,  and  adjust  difficulties. 

Such  being  the  nature  of  the  power  of  our  Church  courts,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  its  limitations.  The  power  of  all  our  courts  is  limited 
in  three  ways :  First,  it  extends  only  to  things  ecclesiastical,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  secular  affairs.  Secondly,  it  is  limited  by  the  constitution. 
Thirdly,  it  is  limited  by  the  word  of  God. 

1.  The  Church  has  authority  only  in  matters  pertaining  to  religion. 
It  is  organized  and  endowed  by  her  Head  with  certain  prerogatives  in 
order  to  secure  the  propagation  and  preservation  of  the  gospel,  the 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.        405 

purity  and  edification  of  the  body  of  Christ.  If  Congress  should  pass 
laws  to  regulate  the  religion  of  the  country,  they  would  be  a  dead 
letter.  If  Cliurch  courts  transcend  their  limits,  and  undertake  to  de- 
cide questions  pertaining  to  the  state  and  its  civil  tribunals,  their  deci- 
sions have  no  binding  force.  The  Church  cannot  regulate  the  tariff, 
or  establish  banks,  or  make  all  her  members  democrats  or  republicans, 
or  interpret  the  constitution  of  the  Union  or  of  the  states.  Should 
it  at  any  time  attempt  to  legislate  on  these  subjects,  the  people 
would  regard  their  action  with  the  same  feeling  they  would  the  acts  of 
Congress  assuming  to  regulate  the  faith  of  the  Church.  As  to  this  point 
there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  equally  plain  that  an  unconstitutional 
law  is  void  ab  hiUio.  It  is  no  law.  It  is  not  obligatory  on  any  person 
or  upon  any  organization.  If  a  man  refuses  to  obey  a  law  of  Congress 
or  of  the  states,  which  the  courts  pronounce  unconstitutional,  he  is  held 
harmless.  His  disobedience  is  justified.  This  is  an  important  safe- 
guard in  Church  and  State.  As  our  constitution  establishes  certain 
fixed  principles  and  rules,  and  limits  the  authority  of  all  our  courts, 
even  the  highest,  any  enactment  or  requisition  inconsistent  with  its  pre- 
scriptions, may  be,  and  should  be,  disregarded.  There  is  not  a  presby- 
tery in  the  land  which  would  give  heed  to  any  Assembly  which  should 
forbid  them  to  ordain  a  candidate  unless  he  had  passed  through  a  full 
three  years'  course  in  some  Theological  Seminary.  The  constitution 
also  prescribes  the  terms  of  Christian  and  ministerial  communion,  and 
these  can  only  be  altered  by  altering  the  constitution.  This  is  the 
principle  which  is  enunciated  in  our  book,  when  it  says,  that  no  consti- 
tutional or  standing  rule  shall  be  considered  binding,  until  it  has  been 
remitted  to  the  presbyteries  and  received  their  sanction.  That  is,  the 
General  Assembly  cannot  alter  the  constitution,  or  give  binding  force 
to  anything  inconsistent  with  it.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  Assembly  to  "  lay  down  rules," 
within  the  limits  of  the  constitution.  The  laws  of  Congress  bind  the 
people,  if  constitutional ;  so  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  are  binding  under 
the  same  conditions. 

3.  The  third  limitation  is  that  imposed  by  the  word  of  God.  That 
anything  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  can  bind  the  conscience  of  any 
man,  or  be  rightfully  imposed  upon  him  as  a  rule  of  faith  or  practice, 
no  Protestant  will  for  a  moment  admit.  If  all  the  ecclesiastical  bodies 
in  the  world  should  pronounce  that  true,  which  God  declares  to  be 
false ;  or  that  right,  which  He  pronounces  to  be  wrong,  their  declara- 
tions would  not  have  the  weight  of  a  feather.  No  law  of  man  can  make 
that  sin  which  is  no  sin,  or  that  virtue  which  is  not  virtue.  Should  the 
Assembly  decree  that  eating  meat,  drinking  wine,  using  tobacco,  or 


406  CHUECH  POLITY. 

holding  slaves,  is  sinful  and  a  bar  to  Christian  communion,  if  the  word 
of  God  teaches  the  contrary,  its  decrees  would  bind  his  people  no  more 
than  the  decrees  of  Congress  enjoining  the  worship  of  images  or  the 
adoration  of  the  host.  Here  again,  beyond  question,  we  are  on  common 
ground. 

Another  great  principle  of  our  common  Protestant  Presbyterianism 
is  the  right  of  private  judgment.  It  was  said  on  the  floor  of  the 
,  Assembly,  in  the  warmth  of  debate,  that  the  deliverances,  acts,  or  in- 
j  junctions,  of  that  body,  are  to  be  assumed  to  be  within  the  sphere  of 
Church  jjower,  to  be  constitutional,  and  consistent  with  the  word  of 
God,  and  obeyed  as  such,  until  by  competent  authority  the  contrary  is 
officially  declared.  This  is  the  denial  of  the  first  principles  of  Christian 
liberty,  whether  civil  or  religious.  Every  man  has  not  only  the  right 
to  judge  for  himself  on  all  these  points,  but  is  bound  by  his  allegiance  to 
God  to  claim  and  exercise  it.  The  Bible  teaches,  and  all  Protestants, 
believe,  that  the  Spirit  is  promised  and  given  as  a  teacher,  not  exclu- 
sively to  the  clergy  but  to  all  the  people  of  God.  Therefore,  every 
Christian  is  bound  to  search  the  Scriptures,  and  to  judge  for  himself 

(  whether  the  things  decreed  or  commanded  are  consistent  with  that 

\  standard.     Thus  the  early  Christians  acted  when  they  refused  to  obey 
'  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Jewish  Church.     Thus  afterwards, 
although  the  Bible  enjoined  upon  them  to  be  obedient  to  the  powers 
I  \  that  be ;  yet,  when  the  Roman  magistrates  required  them  to  burn  in- 
'  ^  cense  to  idols,  they  resisted  unto  death.     There  had  been  no  Reforma- 
tion, had  not  God  taught  and  enabled  his  people  to  assert  this  right  of 
judgment.     Episcopacy  would  have  been  established  in  Scotland,  and 
despotism  in  England,  had  not  our  Presbyterian  and  Puritan  ancestors 
been  men  enough  to  claim  and  exercise  the  right  to  think  for  them- 
fsA^         selves,  and  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.     This  right  is  recognized  in 
■^      '    ""  ihd  Btatei^No  man  is  bound  to  obey  an  unconstitutional  law.     If  he 
errs  in  ms  judgment,  and  pronounces  that  to  be  unconstitutional,  which 
is  in  fact  legitimate,  he  must  bear  the  penalty  of  disobedience.     And  so 

j  it  is  in  the  Church.  If  an  individual,  or  presbytery,  refuses  to  obey  an 
injunction  of  the  Assembly,  from  the  conscientious  conviction  that  it  is 

'  contrary  to  the  constitution  or  the  word  of  God,  he  or  it  may  be  ar- 
raigned for  disobedience,  and  condemned  or  justified  according  to  the 
judgment  of  a  competent  court;  for  one  Assembly  is  not  bound  by  the 

^decision  of  its  predecessors ;  and  may,  therefore,  justify  disobedience  to 
any"bf  their  injunctions,  which  it  deems  erroneous.  On  this  right  of 
private  judgment  we  must  all  be  agreedJ^  Dr.  Thomas,  and  other 
leaders  of  the  majority  in  the  late  Assei^TOly,  repeatedly  and  expressly 
stated  that  former  Assemblies  had  frequently  made  deliverances  which 
they  deemed  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.     Of  course  they  did 


^ 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPERINTENDENCE.  407 

not,  and  could  not  adopt  them ;  nor  could  they  require  others  to  ap-  I 
prove  them,  without  demanding  that  men  should  approve  what  they 
believed  God  condemned.  The  deliverances  of  the  Assembly,  therefore, 
by  common  consent,  bind  the  people  and  lower  courts  only  when  they  , 
are  consistent  with  the  constitution  and  the  Scriptures,  and  of  that  con- 
sistency every  man  may  and  must  judge,  as  he  has  to  render  an  account 
to  God. 

Such,  as  we  believe,  are  the  principles  in  which  nine-tenths  of  our 
ministers  and  members  will  concur.  [It  follows  from  these  principles 
that  the  General  Assembly,  unless  expressly  prohibited  by  the  consti-    | 
tutioD,  can  exercise,  when  the  emergency  demands  it,  its  power  to  cor-    / 
rect  abuses  or  evils,  immediately  in  any  part  of  the  Church.     It  has  »   1 
the  right,  on  its  responsibility  to  God,  to  refuse  seats  to  delegates,  or  to      1 
vjJissolve  any  of  the  lower  courts,  if  the  safety  or  well  being  of  the 
Church  requires  it.     This  follows  from  the  scriptural  principle  of  rep- 
resentation.    Under  the  Old  Testament  by  the  appointment  of  God, 
the  elders  of  the  tribe  were  the  tribe  ;  and  the  elders  of  the  congrega- 
tion were  the  congregation,  and  could  act  as  such.     Under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation,  the  elders  of  the  Church,  in  council  assembled, 
are  the  Church.     The  elders  of  a  particular  church  are  that  church, 
and  the  delegated  elders  of  the  whole  Church  are  the  whole  Church, 
and  are  clothed  with  all  Church  power,  under  the  important  limita- 
tions above  specified. 

In  the  second  place,  the  right  in  question,  and  specially  to  exclude  V  ') 
delegates,  flows  from  the  very  nature  of  the  Assembly  as  a  court  of 
Christ.  It  is  a  body  of  men  duly  appointed,  consisting  of  those  who 
recognize  the  Headship  of  Christ,  the  infallible  authority  of  his  word, 
and  the  Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine  and  order.  If  any  men  pre- 
sent themselves  as  commissioners,  who  openly  and  avowedly  declare 
them  no  Christians,  or  no  Presbyterians,  it  is  plain  that  the  Assembly 
should  be  bound  to  reject  them.  The  avowal  may  be  so  explicit  and 
public,  made  viva  voce  or  over  their  written  signatures,  as  to  preclude 
the  need  of  examination  or  proof.  If  any  presbytery  should  make  an 
official  declaration  of  Socinianism,  and  that  declaration  be  signed  by  v^ 
its  commissioners,  published  to  the  world,  and  circulated  through  the 
Assembly,  we  presume  no  one  would  deny  that  the  body  would  be 
bound  to  say  to  those  commissioners,  "  you  do  not  belong  to  the  class 
of  persons  of  whom,  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  this  court  is  to  be  constituted."  If  there  be  any  doubt  as 
to  the  facts,  these  ought  to  be  cleared  up.  But  if  the  facts  are  beyond 
question,  then  the  right  and  duty  of  the  Assembly  is  immediate  and  j 
imperative.  It  is  said  that  it  is  contrary  to  natural  justice  that  any 
man  should  be  condemned  unheard.     But,  in  the  first  place,  in  the  case 


-^ 


408  CHUECH  POLITY. 

supposed  there  is  properly  no  condemnation,  at  least  in  the  judicial 
sense  of  the  term.  The  effect  of  the  exclusion  is  not  to  depose,  or  even 
to  suspend  the  parties  from  their  office  as  ministers  or  elders,  but 
simply,  as  it  were,  to  arrest  them  and  to  remit  them  to  the  proper  tri- 
bunal for  trial.  In  the  second  place,  a  man  cannot  be  said  to  be  con- 
demned without  a  hearing,  who  is  condemned,  (or  rather  arrested),  put 
of  his  own  mouth,  for  his  own  declaration  made  in  prcesenti. 

In  the  third  place,  this  right  is  analogous  to  the  right  of  expulsion. 
If  a  man  should  rise  in  the  Assembly  and  blaspheme,  he  may  immedi- 
ately be  expelled.  There  would  be  no  need  of  a  trial  or  an  examina- 
tion. And  fourthly,  this  right  of  peremptory  and  immediate  action  is 
the  right  of  self-preservation,  which  belongs  to  all  bodies  and  associa- 
tions. It  is  exercised  by  all  legislative  assemblies.  Congress  may 
rightfully  exclude  any  ayowed  traitor  from  taking  his  seat  in  the 
council  of  the  nation.  Every  judge  has  the  right  to  protect  the  sanc- 
tuaiy  of  justice  by  immediately  committing  to  prison  any  one  who 
violates  its  dignity.  General  Sheridan,  in  the  last  battles  before  Rich- 
mond, deprived  General  Warren  of  his  command  on  the  field,  and  sent 
him  to  the  rear.  This  was  a  tremendous  punishment  inflicted  without 
a  hearing.  It  may  have  been  an  act  of  cruelty  or  injustice,  but  the 
right  thus  to  act  cannot  be  questioned.  General  Washington  did  the 
same  thing  in  the  case  of  General  Lee  in  the  battle  of  Monmouth. 

These  remarks  are  all  applicable  to  the  case  of  dissolving  a  pres- 
bytery. Should  any  such  body  make  a  declaration  of  Socinianism,  or 
avow  themselves  to  be  infidels,  the  Assembly  would  not  be  bound  to 
leave  the  people  six  months  under  the  instruction  and  government  of 
such  open  apostates.  It  would  be  its  duty,  in  virtue  of  its  charge  of 
all  the  churches,  immediately  to  dissolve  the  body,  and  deprive  its 
members  of  all  ecclesiastical  power. 

The  views  here  expressed  of  the  inherent  power  of  our  Church  courts, 
and  especially  of  the  General  Assembly,  were  presented  and  defended 
at  length  in  the  pages  of  this  Beview  for  July,  1838,  pp.  464 — 490.[*] 
It  was  then  shown:    d.'That  our  church,  from  the  first,  adopted  the 
standards  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  both  as  to  faith  and  form  of  gov- 
ernment.    2.  That  in  Scotland,  so  far  from  the  Assembly  being  the 
creature  of  the  presbyteries  and  deriving  its  powers  from  them,  it 
(   existed   before  the  presbyteries,  and  governed  the  Church  for  years 
y  before  any  presbytery  was  organized.    It  was  the  Assembly  that  formed 
(  first  the  synods,  and  then  the   presbyteries.      3.   That  the  General 
Assembly  in  Scotland  had  from  the  beginning  acted  as  the  governing  ' 
body  of  the  whole  Church,  exercising,  whenever  it  saw  fit,  original 

[*See  above,  chap,  xi.] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPEKINTENDENCE.         409 

jurisdiction;  acting  directly  on  the  presbyteries,  and  individual  minis- 
ters, citing,  trying,  condemning  or  acquitting  them,  as  it  deemed  right ; 
transferring  pastors  from  one  parish  to  another  without  the  interven- 
tion of  any  of  the  lower  courts ;  and,  in  short,  exercising  a  general  and 
immediate  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church.  On  this  head  wc  quoted 
from  Hill's  Institutes,  the  highest  modern  authority  on  the  discipline 
and  government  of  the  Scottish  Church,  the  following  passage.  After 
stating  that  the  powers  of  the  General  Assembly  are  judicial,  legis- 
lative, and  executive,  Dr.  Hill  says :  "  In  the  exercise  of  these  powers 
the  General  Assembly  often  issues  peremptory  mandates,  summoning 
individuals  and  inferior  courts  to  appear  at  its  bar.  It  sends  precise 
orders  to  particular  judicatories,  directing,  assisting,  or  restraining  them 
in  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  and  its  superintending,  controlling 
authority,  maintains  soundness  of  doctrine,  checks  irregularity,  and 
enforces  general  laws  throughout  all  districts  of  the  Church."  4.  That 
our  Confession  of  Faith  itself  teaches,  chap.  xxxi.  2,  that,  "  It  belongeth  v 
to  synods  and  councils,  ministerially,  to  determine  controversies  of 
faith,  and  cases  of  conscience ;  to  set  down  rules  and  directions  for  the 
better  ordering  of  thJ^public  worship  of  God,  and  government  of  his 
Church,"  &c.  And  that  "  the  decrees  and  determinations  of  such 
councils,  if  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with  rev- 
erence and  submission,  not  only  for  their  agreement  with  the  word,  but 
also  for  the  power  whereby  they  are  made,  as  being  an  ordinance  of 
God,  appointed  thereunto  in  his  word."  It  is  here  taught  not  only 
what  the  power  of  Church  courts  is,  but  also  that  it  is  from  God,  and 
not  conferred  by  men.  fd:*  Pages  of  that  article  of  our  Review  are  c  ^ 
filled  with  citations  from  our  records  to  show  that  the  original  Synod  \ 
of  Philadelphia,  the  united  Synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  ] 
and  the  General  Assembly,  have  uniformly  acted  as  courts  of  original 
jurisdiction;  acting  immediately  on  individuals,  sessions,  and  presby- 
teries, and  that  the  Assembly  has  ever  assumed  that  it  had  the  power  to 
correct  abuses,  by  the  immediate  exercise  of  its  authority,  when  neces- 
sity required,  in  any  part  of  the  Church.  We  cannot,  therefore,  agree  \ 
with  those  who  denied  the  right  of  the  General  Assembly  to  exclude  '. 
the  commissioners  of  the  Presbytery  of  Louisville,  or  to  dissolve  the 
presbytery  itself.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  effect  of 
dissolving  a  presbytery,  is  not,  as  some  of  the  speakers  seemed  to  sup- 
pose, to  suspend  or  to  depose  its  members.  It  merely  dissolves  the 
bond  which  unites  them  as  a  church  court.  They  might  be  attached 
to  other  presbyteries,  or  disposed  of  as  the  Assembly  saw  fit. 

We  are  aware  that  in  answer  to  a  protest  of  the  New-school  party, 
against  the  abrogation  of  the  plan  of  union  between  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists,  the  writers  of  that  answer  take  different  ground 


410  CHUECH  POLITY. 

from  that  assumed  above.  They  say:  "1.  The  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  like  that  of  our  National  Union,  is  a  constitution 
of  specific  powers,  granted  by  the  presbyteries,  the  fountains  of  power, 
to  the  synods  and  General  Assembly.  2.  No  powers  not  specifically 
granted  can  lawfully  be  inferred  and  assumed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly, but  only  such  as  are  indispensably  necessary  to  carry  into  efiect 
those  specifically  granted."  On  this  it  may  be  remarked:  1.  That 
every  one  is  aware  that  the  Assembly  is  in  the  habit  of  appointing 
one  or  more  persons  to  answer  protests,  who  present  their  own  particu- 
lar views.  It  would  be  unfair  to  hold  the  Assembly  responsible  for 
the  soundness  of  every  argument  which  they  may  see  fit  to  use.  2. 
The  theory,  the  opposite  to  that  assumed  in  this  answer,  was  the  basis 
of  the  whole  action  of  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and  1838,  and  was  con- 
stantly avowed  in  the  debates.  3.  Admitting,  that  the  Assembly  of 
i;lrl837  did  commit  itself  to  this  false  theory,  that  would  have  little 
weight  against  the  uniform  teaching  and  action  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  both  in  Scotland  and  in  this  country,  in  0,11  periods  of  its 
history. 

If  it  be  acknowledged  that  the  Assembly  had  a  right  to  do  what  it 
did,  the  second  question  to  be  considered  is,  was  there  any  adequate 
ground  for  the  exclusion  of  the  commissioners  from  the  Louisville 
Presbytery,  or  for  ordering  the  dissolution  of  every  presbytery  who 
should  admit  any  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  and  Testimony?  On 
this  question  every  man  has  a  right  to  his  own  opinion.  For  ourselves 
we  think  there  was  no  adequate  reason  for  such  action.  1.  Because 
the  penalty  was  unduly  severe.  It  is  among  the  heaviest  within  the 
power  of  the  Assembly  to  inflict,  and  therefore,  should  be  reserved  for 
extreme  cases.  2.  There  was  no  important  object  to  be  gained.  The 
Church  would  not  have  been  endangered  in  any  of  its  important  in- 
terests by  the  adoption  of  a  milder  course.  3.  The  Assembly  itself 
virtually  admitted  that  the  signing  of  a  Declaration  and  Testimony  was 
not  a  sufficient  reason  for  exclusion  from  our  Church  courts.  It 
allowed  those  who  had  signed  it,  and  who  openly  avowed  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Assembly,  their  continued  adhesion  to  it,  to  retain  their 
seats  to  the  end  of  the  sessions.  Yet  it  ordered,  that  any  presbytery 
who  should  admit  one  of  those  signers,  should  be  ipso  facto  dissolved 
for  doing  what  the  Assembly  itself  had  done.  4.  This  action,  instead 
of  tending  to  allay  strife  and  division  in  the  Border  States,  had  a 
directly  opposite  tendency,  and  therefore,  was  so  earnestly  deprecated 
by  some  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  of  the  Church.  5.  It  places,  or 
would  place,  if  carried  out,  many  ministers  and  churches  in  anomalous 
position,  and  put  in  jeopardy  important  interests.  The  dissolution  of 
a  presbytery,  as  before  remarked,  does  not  suspend  or  depose  its  minis- 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWEE  OF  SUPEEINTENDENCE.         411 

ters,  or  separate  tliem  from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  or  vacate  their 
pulpits.  Without  further  action  it  only  throws  all  things  into  con- 
fusion. 

These  reasons,  however,  afford  no  justification  of  disobedience  to  the 
orders  of  the  Assembly.  A  law  is  binding  although  severe  or  unwise. 
So  the  orders  of  the  Assembly  are  binding,  unless  they  transcend  the 
sphere  of  Church  power,  or  are  contrary  to  the  constitution,  or  to  the 
word  of  God. 

As  to  the  third  question,  which  concerns  the  mode  adopted  to  secure 
the  ends  aimed  at,  we  believe,  from  all  we  can  learn,  there  is  little 
difference  of  opinion.  The  leaders  of  the  majority  themselves  depre- 
cated the  action  of  Dr.  McLean,  which,  for  some  reason,  they  felt  con- 
strained to  adopt.  That  a  member  should  rise  in  his  place,  propose  the 
exclusion  of  the  members  of  a  j^resbytery,  make  a  speech  in  favour  of 
his  motion,  and  then  move  the  previous  question,  and  thus  prevent  any 
other  member  from  stating  his  objections  to  the  motion,  or  his  reasons 
for  preferring  a  different  course,  was  certainly  a  most  extraordinary 
proceeding.  And  then  the  motion  to  refer  the  case  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Louisville  to  a  committee  of  the  house,  thus  taking  it  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  judicial  committee,  where  it  already  was  on  the  appeal  of 
Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  was  irregular  and  unnecessary.  It  prevented 
the  matter  from  coming  up  in  the  way  which  had  been  designed,  and 
which  would  have  secured  a  fair  hearing  of  all  parties,  and  a  calm 
judicial  decision. 

In  looking  back  over  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly,  there  is  much 
for  which  the  Church  should  be  thankful,  and  much  which  promises 
great  good  in  the  future. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Assembly  recognized  the  right  of  protest  and 
of  free  discussion,  as  belonging  not  only  to  its  own  members,but  to  all 
the  members  and  ministers  of  the  Church.  This  was  declared  to  be 
the  birthright  of  Presbyterians.  It  was  called  a  sacred  right,  with 
which  the  Assembly  disclaimed  all  intention  of  interfering.  The  right 
of  protest,  as  it  has  always  been  exercised,  includes  the  right  of  dissent- 
ing from  the  deliverances  and  judgments  of  Church  courts,  on  the 
ground  of  their  being  unwise,  unjust,  unconstitutional,  or  unscriptural. 
It  includes  the  right  to  make  all  proper  efforts  of  proving  the  correct- 
ness of  the  grounds  of  objection,  and  to  bring  their  brethren  to  agree 
with  them. 

Secondly  :  The  Assembly  recognized  the  principle  that  adhesion  to 

its  deliverances  and  judgment  cannot  be  made  a  condition  of  Christian 

or  ministerial  communion.     It  would  be  a    contradiction  to  allow  of 

"protest  against  a  deliverance,  and  then  demand  approbation  of  it  as  a 

condition  of  membership  in  the  Church  or  ministry.     Should  the  As- 


412  CHUECH  POLITY. 

gembly  declare  that  tlie  holding  of  .slaves  is  not  a  sm,  or  a  bar  to  Chris- 
tian communion,  and  allow  Dr.  Thomas  and  others  to  protest  against 
Buch  declaration  as  unscriptural,  could  it  then  require  him  to  approve 
and  act  upon  it  on  pain  of  exclusion  from  the  Church  ?  The  judicial 
decisions  of  the  Assembly  are  of  course  final,  and  must  be  submitted 
to,  until  the  penalty  be  removed  by  a  subsequent  Assembly.  Its  or- 
ders and  injunctions  are  to  be  respected  in  all  cases,  and  obeyed,  un- 
less believed  to  be  contrary  to  the  constitution  and  the  word  of  God. 
K  an  individual  be  arraigned  for  such  disobedience,  and  the  Church 
courts,  including  the  Assembly,  censure  him  for  the  offence,  he  would 
have  meekly  to  submit  to  the  infliction,  (as  the  Quakers  do  for  refusing 
to  obey  the  military  laws),  or  leave  the  Church.  It  is  plain  that  the 
Assembly  recognized  these  principles  when  it  adopted  the  papers  pro- 
posed by  Dr.  Gurley  and  Dr.  J.  C.  Lowrie.  The  former  expressly 
recognized  the  right  of  those  who  are  not  able  to  subscribe  to  the  testi- 
monies of  the  Assembly  of  1865,  or  to  carry  out  its  injunctions,  to  re- 
main undisturbed  in  the  Church,  provided  they  do  not  engage  in  move- 
ments defiant  of  the  Assembly,  and  which  lead  to  schism.  The  other 
paper  does  raibstantially  the  same  thing.  The  Assembly  has  always 
acted  on  this  principle  in  case  of  conscientious  dissent  from  its  testi- 
monies, or  failure  to  obey  its  injunctions.  The  abolitionists  who 
openly  repudiated  the  deliverance  of  the  Assembly  of  1845,  and 
refused  to  act  upon  it  in  the  exercise  of  discipline,  were  left  to  enjoy 
their  constitutional  liberty.  That  is,  the  Assembly  avows  its  purpose 
of  acting  on  the  common  sense  principle  adoj)ted  by  every  constitutional 
government.  The  ctate  allows  the  people  to  think  and  say  what  they 
please  about  its  laws,  and  to  disobey  them  for  conscience'  sake,  pro- 
vided they  do  not  disturb  the  public  peace,  and  quietly  submit  to  the 
penalty  of  disobedience,  when  judged  to  be  without  sufiicient  cause. 

Thirdly :  The  doctrine  taught  by  this  Assembly  respecting  schism,  is 
the  scriptural  doctrine  on  that  raibject,  as  it  has  ever  been  held  in  our 
Church.  Schism  is  reparation  from  the  Church  without  adequate 
cause.  It  is  a  breach  of  Christian  fellowship  and  subjection,  enjoined 
by  Christ  on  His  people.  This  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a  great  sin. 
No  man  is  justifiable  in  thus  breaking  up  the  unity  of  the  Church,  un- 
less he  is  required  to  profess  or  to  do  something  which  the  Bible  con- 
demns as  false  or  wrong ;  or  unless  he  is  prohibited  from  professing  or 
doing  what  the  Bible  commands.  We,  as  Presbyterians,  are  required 
to  profess  and  teach  nothing  but  what  is  contained  in  our  doctrinal 
standards,  and  we  are  required  to  do  nothing  but  to  conform  to  the 
form  of  government  and  discipline  which  we  have  voluntarily  adopted. 
It  would  be  a  sad  thing  if  the  union  of  the  United  States  should  be 
dissolved  because  Congress  should  enact  an  unjust  tariff,  or  an  uncon- 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWER  OF  SUPEEIXTEXDENCE.         413 

6titutional  bankrupt  law,  and  it  would  be  equally  grievous  if  the 
Church  were  to  be  rent  asunder  every  time  the  General  Assembly 
should,  in  the  judgment  of  a  portion  of  its  members,  err  in  their  testi- 
mony or  injunctions. 

Fourth :  This  Assembly  teaches  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning 
slavery.  It  distinctly  asserts  that  slaveholding  is  not  a  sin  or  a  bar  to 
Christian  communion.  This  it  does  in  two  ways :  First,  by  declaring 
that  the  recent  testimonies  on  this  subject  are  not  to  be  understood  in 
any  sense  inconsistent  with  the  former  deliverances  of  the  Church. 
But,  in  1845,  the  scriptural  doctrine  on  this  subject  was  not  only  dis- 
tinctly stated,  but  elaborately  sustained.  The  Assembly  declares  that 
it  still  adheres  to  that  deliverance,  and  virtually  reiterates  it.  Secondly, 
by  saying  that  the  errors  intended  to  be  denounced,  the  renunciation 
of  which  was  insisted  upon,  were :  1.  That  slavery  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion, "in  the  same  category  with  marriage  and  civil  government," 
(and  therefore  to  be  perpetuated  and  extended) — and,  2.  That  it  is 
the  mission  of  the  Church  to  conserve  the  institution.  These  declara- 
tions of  the  Assembly  are  contained  in  the  paper  offered  by  Dr.  Krebs 
and  in  the  Pastoral  Letter. 

Fifth :  The  Assembly  takes  scriptural  and  liberal  ground  on  the 
subject  of  Christian  Union.  It  declares  that  it  is  desirous  of  retaining, 
or  receiving  into  the  Church,  all  who  sincerely  adopt  our  standards  of 
doctrine  and  government,  who  adhere  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church, 
as  just  explained  by  the  Assembly,  and  are  willing  to  submit  to  its 
legitimate  authority,  that  is,  who  are  not  schismatical  in  their  spirit 
and  measures.  These  principles  are,  in  the  paper  presented  by  Dr.  J. 
T.  Smith,  specially  applied  to  the  Southern  churches.  With  regard  to 
whom  the  Assembly  says  that  it  "  greatly  deplores  the  continued  sepa- 
ration between  ourselves  and  our  Southern  brethren,  eo  long  united  in 
the  bonds  of  Christian  love  and  ecclesiastical  fellowship ;  and  expresses 
the  earnest  desire  that  the  way  may  be  soon  opened  for  a  reunion  on 
the  basis  of  our  common  standards,  and  on  terms  consistent  with  truth 
and  righteousness." 

In  view  of  these  declarations,  it  is  the  obvious  duty  of  every  minis- 
ter and  member  of  our  Church  to  labour  to  allay  all  further  alien- 
ation and  strife.  We  have  here  a  platform,  broad,  scriptural,  and 
just,  on  which  the  whole  Church,  North,  South,  East,  and  West,  may 
unite. 


414  CHURCH  POLITY. 

d.   Power  to  Remove  a  Sentence.  [*] 

[Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  688.] 
As  soon  as  the  preceding  subject  [f]  was  disposed  of,  the  Eev.  Dr. 
Maclean  proposed  the  following  preamble  and  resolution : 

"  Whereas  the  Rev.  Archibald  McQueen  was  suspended  by  the  Presbyterj  of 
Fayetteville  from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  and  from  the  communion  of  the 
Church,  for  marrying  ihe  sister  of  his  deceased  wife;  and  whereas  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  last  year,  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  presbytery ;  and  whereas, 
in  the  judgment  of  this  General  Assembly,  the  censure  which  has  been  inflicted, 
hitherto  submitted  to,  ought  to  be  removed  ;  therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Presby- 
tery of  Fayetteville  be  directed  to  remove  the  aforesaid  sentence  of  suspension, 
and  to  restore  the  Rev.  Archibald  McQueen  to  the  communion  of  the  Church  and 
the  exercise  of  the  ministry." 

This  unexpected  motion  added  much  to  the  excitement  which  the  preceding 
question  had  produced;  and  Dr.  M.,  while  proceeding  with  his  remarks  was  re- 
peatedly called  to  order.  The  moderator,  however,  decided  that  he  was  speaking 
in  order.  At  length  the  question  w.as  raised,  whether  the  motion  itself  was  not 
out  of  order,  inasmuch  as  it  proposed  to  review  and  reverse  a  decision  of  the  last 
Assembly,  a  motion  which  this  Assembly  was  incompetent  to  entertain.  The  mo- 
derator decided  that  the  motion  was  in  order,  which  decision  was,  upon  appeal, 
Eustained  by  the  house.  Dr.  Maclean  then  proceeded  with  his  remarks,  advoca- 
ting the  restoration  of  Mr.  McQueen;  principally  on  the  following  grounds; 
first,  the  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  Assembly,  by  which  Mr.  McQ.  was  con- 
demned; some  censuring  him  mainly  because  he  had  violated  a  rule  of  the 
Church ;  others  because  the  act  charged  merited  in  itself  a  limited  suspension, 
while  others  thought  he  ought  to  abandon  his  wife  before  he  could  be  restored. 
Secondly,  he  urged  the  excellent  character  of  Mr.  McQ.  and  the  painful  circum- 
stances in  which  he  was  placed  by  the  action  of  the  Church.  Thirdly,  the  great 
hardship  of  leaving  one  man  under  this  severe  censure,  while  so  many  other  men 
were  allowed  to  remain  undisturbed  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  He  urged  fur- 
ther the  obsolete  character  of  the  law  under  which  the  sentence  had  been  passed, 
and  the  respectful  submission  which  Mr.  McQ.  had  rendered  to  the  painful  sen- 
tence under  which  he  laboured ;  and  especially  the  consideration  that  the  highest 
judicatory  of  our  Church,  whether  the  old  Synod,  or  subsequently  the  General  As- 
sembly, had  never  been  disposed  to  take  extreme  action  in  such  cases.  In  sup- 
port of  this  last  position  he  cited  various  decisions  of  our  earlier  Church  courts. 

Dr.  Nott  moved  the  reference  of  the  motion  to  the  same  committee  to  which  the 
proposal  for  an  amendment  of  the  constitution  had  already  been  referred.  Both 
the  reference  and  the  original  motion  were  strenuously  opposed  by  Messrs.  Jun- 
kln,  Breckinridge,  I.  W.  Piatt,  and  Chancellor  Johns.  The  last  named  gentle- 
man remarked  that  this  was  a  case  of  discipline.  When  we  find  where  Ave  are, 
then  we  know  what  rule  ought  to  govern  us.     It  being  a  case  of  discipline  there 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  topic,  "  Case  of  ihe  Rev.  Archi- 
bald McQueen;"  Princeton  Review,  1843,  p.  457.] 

[t  t.  e.,  The  proposition  to  amend  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  striking  out  parts 
of  chap,  xxiv.,  see's,  i.  and  ii,  relating  to  incestuous  marriages,  which  was  not  car- 
ried.] 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  POWEK  OF  SUPEKINTENDENCE.         41 5 

is  no  doubt  what  course  ought  to  be  pursued.  To  take  up  such  a  case  when  the 
parties  are  out  of  court,  the  record  gone,  and  all  the  pleadings  out  of  view  would' 
be  an  unheard  of  proceeding.  But  viewing  the  matter  in  the  light  of  a  mere  reso- 
lution it  is  a  prejudging  of  the  case.  You  may  call  it  legislation,  but  the  name 
will  not  alter  the  nature  of  the  transaction.  What  would  be  thought  of  an  appel- 
late court,  taking  up  a  case  already  decided,  and  without  hearing  any  of  the  par- 
ties or  calling  for  the  record,  sending  it  down  with  all  the  weight  of  its  influence, 
in  favour  of  a  reversal  of  the  sentence?  And  shall  we  send  down  a  mandatory 
writ  to  the  presbytery,  which  has  the  exclusive  right  primarily  to  judge  in  the 
case?  Let  us  stop  here.  My  great  desire  is  to  preserve  the  purity  of  this  high 
ecclesiastical  court.  As  in  civil  matters  a  judge  must  not  express  an  opinion  in 
advance,  so  here  we  should  cautiously  avoid  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  a 
case  that  may  yet  come  up  before  the  General  Assembly  by  reference  or  appeal. 
Let  Mr.  McQueen,  if  he  is  so  disposed,  apply  to  his  presbytery,  and  if  they  refuse 
to  entertain  his  application  or  to  do  him  justice  in  the  premises,  let  him  complain 
or  appeal  to  the  Synod  or  General  Assembly ;  but  I  beseech  you,  moderator,  let 
not  this  high  court  of  final  resort  disqualify  itself  for  such  a  review,  by  prejudging 
the  case. 

As  soon  as  Chancellor  Johns  concluded,  the  previous  question  was  called  and 
sustained.  The  motion  for  commitment  being  thus  cut  off,  the  question  on  Dr. 
Maclean's  resolution  was  then  put  and  rejected  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  very  few 
voices  being  heard  in  the  affirmative. 

The  principle  involved  in  this  case  is  one  of  no  little  impcitance.  The 
question  whether  the  Assembly  had  the  constitutional  right  to  entertain 
the  motion  to  restore  Mr.  McQueen,  or  to  order  his  restoration,  is  of 
course  very  different  from  the  question,  Whether  it  was  expedient  to 
pass  such  a  motion,  or  whether  the  method  proposed  was  the  right  way 
of  reaching  the  end  aimed  at.  Dr.  Maclean  supposed  he  had  sufficiently 
guarded  his  motion  from  the  objections  so  forcibly  urged  by  Mr.  Johns, 
by  avoiding  all  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the  decision  of  the  preced- 
ing Assembly.  It  might  be  assumed  that  their  sentence  was  perfectly 
equitable  and  just,  and  yet  if  it  had  been  submitted  to,  and  been  en- 
dured for  more  than  a  year,  it  might  be  proper  that  it  should  now  be 
removed.  But  has  the  Assembly  the  right,  by  a  mere  resolution,  to 
inflict  or  remove  a  judicial  sentence?  A  negative  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion does  not  appear  to  us  to  be  sustained  by  saying  that  the  Assembly 
has  only  appellate  jurisdiction  in  such  cases.  This  is  a  very  prevalent 
doctrine,  but  its  correctness  is  at  least  a  matter  of  doubt.  It  is  certain 
that  the  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  has  ever  (claimed  and 
exercised  original  jurisdiction,  acting  as  the  presbytery  of  the  whole 
Church.  It  is  certain  that  similar  ecclesiastical  councils,  have  in  all 
ages  of  the  Church,  acted  on  the  same  principle.  And  our  own  As- 
sembly, in  some  few  cases,  has  done  the  same.  It  has  taken  up  a 
foreign  minister  whom  one  of  our  presbyteries  refused  to  receive,  ex- 
amined him  touching  his  qualifications,  and  passed  a  vote  of  approba- 


416  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tlon,  and  authorized  any  presbytery  to  wliom  he  should  apply  to  re- 
ceive him  as  a  member.  There  may  be  cases  in  which  the  exercise  of 
this  right  might  be  expedient  and  necessary.  But  whatever  may  be 
thought  on  this  point,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  AvSsembly, 
though  it  is  an  appellate  court,  is  a  great  deal  more.  There  is  no  exact 
analogy  between  our  judicatories,  and  the  civil  courts  of  the  country, 
because  in  our  civil  government,  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
functions  are  carefully  distinguished,  and  in  general  committed  to  dif- 
ferent hands ;  but  with  us  all  these  powers  are  vested  in  the  same 
bodies.  The  Assembly  is  the  highest  legislative,  judicial  and  execu- 
tive body  in  the  Church.  It  was  not  called  upon  to  act  as  a  court,  but 
as  the  executive.  It  was  not  asked  to  review  a  decision  but  to  remit  a 
sentence  ;  to  do  Avhat  the  executive  of  a  state  does,  when  it  grants  a 
pardon  or  remits  a  penalty  decreed  by  a  judicial  tribunal.  The  As- 
sembly could  not  be  called  upon  to  inflict  a  sentence,  without  parties, 
without  records,  or  without  argument,  for  from  the  very  nature  of  such 
an  act,  it  could  only  be  performed  by  the  body  in  its  judicial  capacity. 
But  this  does  not  prove  that  it  might  not  remit  even  the  most  justly 
inflicted  sentence,  if  the  occasion  called  for  the  exercise  of  this  execu- 
tive grace. 

"Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  abstract  question  of  the  right  of  the 
Assembly,  in  its  executive  capacity,  to  remit  a  sentence  judicially  in- 
flicted, the  argument  against  its  exercise,  in  the  case  under  considera- 
tion, seems  to  us  unanswerable.  Thei'e  is  the  general  objection  founded 
upon  the  difficulty  of  discriminating  between  the  executive  and  judicial 
functions  of  such  a  body,  or  of  preventing  the  one  from  interfering  with 
the  other.  We  do  not  see  how  the  argument  of  Mr.  Johns  is  to  be 
disposed  of,  that  the  Assembly  was  liable  to  be  called  upon  to  sit  judi- 
cially on  the  very  question  which  it  was  then  called  upon  to  decide  by 
resolution.  The  question  whether  the  censure  inflicted  on  Mr.  Mc- 
Queen had  been  endured  a  sufiicient  length  of  time,  was  one  Avhich  he 
might  at  any  time  bring  before  the  Assembly,  by  applying  to  be  re- 
stored to  the  exercise  of  his  office.  This  suggests  another  of  the  argu- 
ments urged  against  Dr.  Maclean's  motion,  that  it  aimed  at  accomplish- 
ing in  an  irregular  way,  an  object  Avhich  could  be  attained  by  the  ordi- 
nary operation  of  our  system.  It  was  not  a  case  for  which  the  consti- 
tution provided  no  remedy.  The  lower  courts  were  open  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Queen, and  to  them  he  might  at  any  time  apply,  and  in  case  of  their 
refusal,  he  could  seek  redress  at  the  bar  of  the  Assembly.  There  was 
great  weight  also  in  the  objection  urged  by  Mr.  Breckinridge,  that  the 
Assembly  was  called  upon  to  act  in  ignorance  of  the  facts  necessary  for 
a  proper  decision  of  the  case.  They  did  not  know  that  Mr.  McQueen 
even  wished  to  re-enter  a  Church  whose  laws  condemned  his  conduct; 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAEDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  417 

they  knew  not  officially  whether  he  retained  any  relation  to  the  Presby- 
tery of  Fayetteville,  or  whether  he  had  connected  himself  with  some 
other  denomination.  With  what  propriety  then  could  the  Assembly 
be  called  upon  of  its  own  motion,  without  any  application  from  any 
quarter,  to  act  in  the  business. 

There  is  another  consideration  as  it  seems  to  us  of  great  weight  in 
tliis  matter.  The  unavoidable  consequence  of  acting  on  the  plan  pro- 
posed by  Dr.  Maclean  must  be  a  collision  between  the  Assembly  and 
the  lower  courts.  Admitting  that  the  Assembly  has  the  right,  of  its  own 
motion,  to  restore  a  man  to  the  ministry,  has  it  a  right  to  force  him  on  a 
reluctant  presbytery  ?  That  the  presbyteries  may  judge  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  their  own  members,  is  one  of  their  most  certain  and  important 
rights;  and  one  which  they  can  exercise  without  responsibility  to  any 
higher  court.  They  have  aright  to  refuse  to  receive  any  man  as  a  member 
whom  they  judge  for  any  reason  to  be  unsuitable.  Could  the  Assembly 
force  an  abolitionist  on  a  southern  presbytery  ?  Where  a  case  comes  up 
judicially  from  a  lower  court  and  the  Assembly  decides  that  their  rea- 
sons for  suspending  him  were  insufficient,  the  operation  of  that  decision 
is  indeed  to  restore  him  to  his  standing  in  the  body,  but  this  is  very 
different  from  directing  a  presbytery  to  receive  into  their  confidence 
and  communion  a  man  who  has  no  connection  with  them,  and  whom 
they  consider  unworthy  or  unsuitable  for  membership.  We  doubt 
whether  any  presbytery  would  be  willing,  in  this  extra-judicial  way,  to 
receive  any  man  against  whom  they  had  conscientious  objections,  on 
the  simple  direction  of  the  General  Assembly.  If  the  Assembly  chose 
to  take  the  whole  matter  into  their  own  hands,  let  them  restore  Mr.  Mc- 
Queen to  his  standing,  and  authorize  any  presbytery  who  saw  fit,  to 
receive  him.  This  would  be  going  great  lengths,  but  it  would  be  less 
objectionable  than  forcing  him  on  a  body  whose  consciences  forbade 
their  acknowledging  him  as  a  minister,  in  good  standing.  On  the 
whole  we  greatly  rejoice  that  a  course  so  unprecedented  and  so  liable 
to  objection  was  met  by  a  vote  of  such  decided  condemnation. 

§  6.  Boards  and  Committees. 

a.  Voluntary  Societies  and  Ecclesiastical  Organizations.  [*] 

We  are  disposed  to  think  there  must  be,  on  an  average,  at  least  one 
misrepresentation  for  every  page  in  this  work.  As  it  requires  more 
words  to  correct  a  misstatement  than  to  make  it,  we  should  be  obliged 

[*  Article,  same  title,  reviewing  ''A  Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies  and  a  defence  of 
the  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1836  against  the  Strictures  of  the  Princeton 
Reviewers  and  others."  By  a  member  of  tlie  Assembly  ;  Princeton  Hevicw,  1837,  p. 
101.] 

27 


418  CHURCH  POLITY. 

to  write  a  book  instead  of  a  review,  if  we  thought  it  necessary  to  cor- 
rect all  these  errors.  We  believe  they  may  be  safely  allowed  to  work 
their  own  cure.  It  is  our  object  to  leave  personal  matters,  as  far  as 
possible,  on  one  side,  and  to  attend  to  those  only  which  are  of  general 
and  permanent  interest.  The  first  topic  of  this  nature  presented  in  the 
work  before  us  is  : — 

The  relative  claims  of  Voluntary  Associations  and  Ecclesiastical  Organi- 
zation. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  point,  a  great  deal  of  confusion  often  arises 
from  not  accurately  defining  the  terms  employed.  Thus,  our  author 
says,  (p.  17)  "  It  is  the  revealed  will  of  God  to  evangelize  the  world  by 
the  instrumentality  of  his  Church."  Here  are  two  expressions,  the 
meaning  of  which  must  be  definitely  fixed,  to  secure  anything  like 
accuracy  of  deduction,  or  correctness  of  result.  The  above  statement 
is  one  in  which  high  Church-men  and  low  Church-men,  papists  and 
independents,  would  agree.  Before  we  can  argue  from  it,  we  must 
know  first  what  is  meant  by  the  Church,  and,  secondly,  what  is  intended 
by  the  expression  "to  evangelize  the  world."  Our  author  informs  us 
that  "  the  Church  is  composed  of  all  the  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus, — 
all  converted  men — associated  by  public  profession  and  covenants, 
under  whatever  form,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  worship  of  God  and 
for  the  advancement  of  his  cause."  According  to  this  definition  be- 
lievers are  not  the  Church  in  virtue  of  their  spiritual  relatioil  to  each 
other  and  their  divine  head,  nor  in  virtue  of  a  profession  of  the  true 
religion,  but  in  virtue  of  their  association  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
worship  of  God  and  the  advancement  of  his  cause.  The  Church,  then, 
is  an  associated,  organized  body,  and  it  is  to  this  organization  the 
revealed  will  of  God  assigns  the  duty  of  evangelizing  the  world.  This 
would  be  a  good  introduction  to  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  doctrine 
our  author  ascribes  to  the  Pittsburg  convention,  but  seems  an  extraor- 
dinary statement  of  preliminary  principles  in  favour  of  voluntary 
societies.  If  the  Church  is  a  body  of  men  organized  for  the  purpose 
above  specified,  and  if  the  revealed  will  of  God  has  assigned  to  this  or- 
ganization the  duty  of  evangelizing  the  world,  then,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, the  Church  as  such,  as  an  organization,  must  do  all  that  is  neces- 
sary for  the  accomplishment  of  this  object.  If  a  number  of  men  are 
organized  as  a  school  committee,  or  board  of  regents,  to  superintend 
the  education  of  a  whole  community,  then  they  are  bound  not  merely 
as  individuals  but  as  an  organization  to  attend  to  this  object.  It  is 
their  official  duty,  and  any  voluntary  combination  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  it  out  of  their  hands,  would  be  a  usurpation.  Is  then  the 
Home  Missionary  Society  a  Church  ?    Is  it  a  body  of  believers  associ- 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES  419 

ated  by  public  profession  and  covenants  ?  Or,  has  any  such  association 
ever  appointed  or  constituted  that  society  ?  If  not,  is  it  not,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  his  book,  interfering  with  the  appropi'iate  duty  of  a 
divine  organization,  and  undertaking  to  do  what  God  has  assigned  to 
other  hands  ? 

The  truth  is,  the  idea  of  association  which  the  author  has  introduced 
into  his  definition  of  the  Church,  does  not  belong  to  it,  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  meant  to  use  the  term,  as  designating  the  catholic  visible 
Church.  And  the  introduction  of  this  idea  vitiates  all  his  arguments, 
and  leads  him  to  conclusions  directly  opposite  to  those  which  he  meant 
to  establish.  •  The  Church,  according  to  our  Confession,  "consists  of  all 
those  who  profess  the  true  religion  together  with  their  children."  The 
wandering  savage  who  has  heard  the  truth,  who  believes  and  declares 
it,  is  a  member  of  this  Church,  as  truly  as  any  minister  or  elder.  We 
concede  that  it  is  to  the  Church  in  this  wide  sense,  the  work  of  evange- 
lizing the  world  is  assigned.  But  here  again,  to  avoid  confusion,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  explain  the  terms  employed.  The  expression 
to  "  evangelize  the  world  "  is  very  vague  and  comprehensive.  It  in- 
cludes every  thing  which  is  designed  and  adapted  to  secure  the  exten- 
sion and  influence  of  the  gospel.  Education  in  all  its  departments, 
from  the  Sunday-school  to  the  Theological  Seminary  ;  the  circulation 
of  the  Scriptures  and  tracts ;  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  ordina- 
tion and  installation  of  pastors,  the  mission  of  evangelists,  &c.,  all  are 
included.  The  Church,  then,  or  the  people  of  God,  are  bound  to  put  I 
into  operation  all  these  and  other  agencies  for  the  attainment  of  this 
great  object.  For  this  end  they  are  bound,  by  the  command  of  God,  | 
to  organize  themselves  as  a  society.  In  Avhat  form  this  organization  shall 
be  made  has  always  been  a  matter  of  doubt ;  and  whether  any  one 
form  is  prescribed  in  the  Scriptures  is  also  a  subject  of  debate.  But  it 
is  on  all  hands  conceded  that  the  people  of  God  are  bound  to  organize 
themselves,  under  some  form,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  great  purpose 
for  which  the  Church  was  constituted.  It  is  as  an  organized  society 
she  is  to  judge  of  the  qualification  of  new  members,  and  exercise  disci- 
pline on  unworthy  ones ;  that  she  is  to  select,  ordain,  and  install  pas- 
tors, and  send  out  evangelists.  There  are  then  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  the  means  for  evangelizing  the  world,  which  can  be 
employed  by  the  Church  in  her  organized  capacity  only.  There  are  | 
others  as  to  which  the  people  of  God  are  at  liberty  to  act  either  as  an 
organized  ecclesiastical  society,  or  in  voluntary  combinations  for  some 
specific  object.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  for  some  purposes,  such  as 
the  distribution  of  the  Scriptures  for  example,  the  latter  is  the  prefera^ 
ble  method.  With  regard  to  others  there  can,  we  think,  be_as  little 
doubt  that  the  ecclesiastical  method  is  to  be  preferred. 


420  CHURCH  POLITY. 

To  which  of  these  classes  should  the  work  of  missions  be  referred  ? 
Is  that  one  of  the  methods  for  evangelizing  the  world  which  the  people 
of  God  are  bound  to  employ  in  their  organized  ecclesiastical  capacity, 
or  is  it  one  with  regard  to  which  they  are  at  liberty  to  adopt  either  plan, 
as  they  think  best  ?  And  if  the  latter,  which,  all  things  considered, 
ought  in  our  Church  and  under  present  circumstances,  to  be  preferred? 

To  answer  these  questions  intelligently,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  term  missions  is  a  very  comprehensive  one.  It  includes  two  very 
distinct  functions,  so  to  speak ;  the  one  strictly  ecclesiastical  and  the 
other  secular.  When  a  man  is  sent  out  as  a  missionary,  whether  to 
the  destitute  or  the  heathen,  it  is  his  presbytery  (we  speak  in  reference 
to  our  own  system)  that  sends  him.  They  give  him  his  mission  and 
his  authority  as  an  evangelist,  and  it  is  to  his  presbytery  he  is  respon- 
sible for  the  manner  in  which  he  discharges  his  duty ;  they  alone  have 
the  right  to  determine  where  he  shall  go,  and  where  he  shall  remain. 
There  is  then  in  the  work  of  missions  a  part  which  the  Church  in  her 
organized  capacity  alone  has  the  right  to  perform,  and  which  she  is 
under  the  strongest  obligation  to  execute  diligently  and  faithfully.  If 
these  evangelists  were  all  men  of  wealth,  or  if  in  all  cases  it  was  possi- 
ble for  them  to  be  supported  either  by  the  labour  of  their  own  hands, 
or  by  the  contributions  of  those  to  whom  they  were  sent,  there  would 
be  no  need  of  any  other  agency  in  the  business.  The  part  which  the 
ecclesiastical  court  is  bound  to  do,  would  be  all  that  is  to  be  done.  But 
as  neither  of  the  above  suppositions  is  commonly  realized,  there  arises 
the  necessity  for  an  organization  to  provide  the  means  of  sending  these 
missionaries  of  the  Church  to  their  respective  fields  of  labour  and  of 
sustaining  them  when  there.  Here  comes  in  the  secular  part  of  the 
work  of  missions.  "  There  must  be  men  organized  and  employed  in  col- 
lecting and  disbursing  money,  and  in  attending  to  the  numerous  and 
often  contemplated  concerns  connected  with  this  subject.  The  whole 
debateable  ground  is  covered  by  the  question,  Is  it  desirable  that  this 
secular  part  of  the  missionary  work  should  be  entrusted  to  voluntary 
associations,  or  to  Boards  appointed  for  the  purpose  by  ecclesiastical 
bodies  ?  We  concede  that  either  plan  is  allowable,  the  question  is, 
which,  all  things  considered,  ought  to  be  preferred  ? 

That  Churches  and  individuals  are  at  liberty  to  decide  this  question 
for  themselves  is  almost  universally  admitted.  This  is  the  ground 
which  Ave  have  always  taken,*  Dr.  Miller  in  his  Letters  to  Presby- 
terians takes  the  same  ground.  And  it  is  known  to  our  readers  that 
the  Board  of  Missions  officially  and  by  its  leading  friends  and  officers 
on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  have  assumed  the  same  position.     In  an 

*  See  Biblical  Repertory  for  July,  1835,  p.  480,  also  for  July,  1836. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  421 

address  to  the  churches  signed  by  Dr.  Green  as  president  of  the 
Board,  and  by  its  two  secretaries,  it  is  said,  "  We  are  not  only  -willing 
but  anxious  that  the  churches  should  be  left  to  their  own  unbiassed 
and  deliberate  choice  of  the  particular  cliannel  through  which  their 
charities  should  flow  forth  to  bless  the  perishing :  nay  more,  that  the 
God  of  all  grace  may  give  to  the  poor  a  heart  to  pray,  and  to  the  rich 
a  disposition  to  contribute  liberally  to  either  of  these  missionary 
Boards  aecoi'ding  to  the  decided  preference  of  every  donor.*  The 
same  ground  is  taken  in  the  report  on  the  subject  of  foreign  missions, 
presented  by  Dr.  Phillips  to  the  last  General  Assembly. f  There  are 
no  doubt  many  persons  who  suppose  that  there  is  an  obligation  on 
Presbyterians  to  sustain  the  Boards  of  tlieir  own  Church,  arising  out 
of  the  general  duty  of  members  of  a  communion  to  the  body  to  which 
they  belong,  or  from  the  supposed  superiority  of  these  Boards,  as  to  the 
wisdom  or  fidelity  with  which  they  are  conducted.  This,  however,  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  resting  this  obligation  on  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority. We  are  aware  also  that  many  who  some  years  ago  cheerfully 
voted  to  recommend  the  Home  Missionary  Society  would  not  do  so 
now,  simply  because  they  believe  that  that  society  has,  under  the  man- 
agement of  its  present  secretary,  become  a  great  party  engine,  and  is 
operating  in  a  manner  most  unfriendly  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
Church.  This,  again,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  opposition  to  that 
institution  founded  on  the  assumption  that  a  voluntary  society  has  no 
right  to  engage  in  the  work  of  missions. 

The  people  of  God  then,  or  the  Church,  in  the  wide  sense  of  the 
term,  are  bound  to  do  all  they  can  to  evangelize  the  world.  One  of 
the  most  important  means  to  be  employed  for  this  purpose  is,  the  send- 
ing abroad,  among  the  destitute  and  heathen,  preachers  of  the  gospel. 
In  conducting  this  work,  there  is  a  part  which  the  Church,  in  her 
organized  capacity,  is  alone  authorized  to  perform,  and  there  is  a  secu- 
lar part  W'hich  may  be  performed  either  by  voluntary  associations, 
or  by  Boards  ecclesiastically  appointed  and  controlled.  Our  deci- 
ded preference  is  for  the  latter ;  it  is  a  preference  which  every  year's 
experience  tends  to  confirm.  But  let  us  hear  the  objections  which 
our  author  has  to  urge  against  such  ecclesiastical  organizations. 

1.  "For  Church  courts  to  assume  the  control  and  direction  of  mis- 
sionary operations  and  disbursements,"  he  tells  us,  "  is  an  attempt  to 
subject  to  ecclesiastical  legislation  that  which  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church  has  left  to  the  unbiassed  decision  of  every  man's  conscience. 

*  See  Christian  Advocate,  vol.  7,  p.  138. 

tWe  see  substantially  the  same  position  assumed  in  the  Presbyterian  for  Dec.  17, 
1836. 


422  CHURCH  POLITY. 

He  has  not  authorized  any  ecclesiastical  tribunal  to 

assess  the  amount  of  each  one's  contribution,  nor  to  prescribe  the  ob- 
jects or  modes  of  its  administration,"  &c.,  &c.  This  objection  is 
founded  on  a  mere  assertion,  and  on  a  most  extraordinary  one.  The 
appointment  of  a  Board  of  Missions  by  a  Church  court,  involves  an 
act  of  legislation  as  to  the  amount  of  each  one's  contribution,  and 
makes  alms-giving  a  matter  of  law !  Do,  then,  the  Boards  of  Mis- 
sions and  Education  assess  the  amount  of  every  man's  donations? 
Are  the  contributions  to  those  Boards  less  spontaneous  than  those 
given  to  the  Home  Missionary  Society  ?  We  cannot  imagine  on  what 
class  of  readers  the  author  expected  this  argument  to  operate. 

2  "  There  is  no  enactment  in  the  Bible  enjoiuing  it  on  the  Church, 
as  such,  in  her  organized  form,  by  her  judicatories,  to  evangelize  the 
world."  The  author  here,  as  so  often  elsewhere,  loses  himself  in  vague 
generalities.  Is  it  not  the  business  of  the  Church,  by  her  judicatories, 
to  ordain  and  install  pastors,  and  send  out  evangelists  ?  And  are  not 
these,  of  all  means,  the  most  important  for  evangelizing  the  world  ? 
The  broad  proposition  as  stated  by  the  writer,  is  at  variance  with  his 
own  opinions,  and  those  of  everybody  else,  as  far  as  we  know.  A  little 
discrimination  would  have  saved  him  from  this  mistake.  There  are 
certain  things  in  carrying  on  the  great  work  of  spreading  the  gospel, 
which  the  Church,  in  her  organized  form,  and  by  her  judicatories,  is 
not  bound  to  perform,  and  there  are  certain  other  things  which  she  can 
do  in  no  other  way.  The  secular  part  of  the  work  of  missions,  as 
stated  above,  belongs  to  the  former  class.  The  mere  collection  and 
disbursement  of  funds,  and  attention  to  the  secular  business  connected 
with  missionary  operations,  may  be  performed  either  by  persons  ecclesi- 
astically appointed,  or  by  single  individuals,  or  by  voluntary  associa- 
tions, as  may,  in  any  given  case,  appear  most  desirable.  But  that  the 
Church,  in  her  organized  capacity,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter, 
is  a  most  grievous  error.  How  low  a  conception  of  the  Church  as  an 
organized  society  does  this  objection  betray !  The  organization  which 
Christ  and  his  apostles  have  ordained,  is  to  be  set  aside,  and  all  its  most 
important  duties,  according  to  this  doctrine,  are  to  be  assumed  by  soci- 
eties of  man's  devising. 

As  to  the  question  of  expediency,  we  have  the  following  arguments 
against  ecclesiastical  organizations.  1.  "That  our  Church,  as  such,  in 
her  highest  court  is  not  well  adapted,  by  the  mode  of  her  organization, 
to  superintend  and  direct  the  work  of  missions,  either  faithfully  or 
efficiently."  The  reasons  assigned  for  this  statement  are,  that  the 
members  come  from  a  distance,  are  frequently  changed,  are  not  fami- 
liar with  the  business,  are  incumbered  Avith  other  affairs,  &c.  The 
little  plausibility  which  belongs  to  this  argument  is  due  to  a  fallacy. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  423 

whicli  we  presume  no  reader  can  fail  to  detect.  The  author  unfairly 
institutes  an  implied  comparison  between  the  General  Assembly  and 
the  more  permanent  Boards,  or  executive  committees  of  voluntary 
societies.  But  the  comparison  should  be  between  the  Assembly  and 
the  Home  Missionary  Society  itself.  The  Assembly  does  not  enter 
into  the  details  of  conducting  missions,  it  is  merely  the  appointing  and 
controlling  body.  The  question,  therefore,  is,  which  is  worthy  of  most 
reliance  as  an  appointing  body,  the  representatives  of  all  the  churches,  or 
a  promiscuous  assembly  collected  from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  for  a  few 
days  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  whose  members  owe  their  seats  and 
votes  to  the  mere  payment  of  a  subscription  ?  Had  we,  or  any  one  else, 
attempted  to  undervalue  the  Home  Missionary  Society  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  impossible,  that  a  number  of  men  coming  from  a  distance, 
remaining  together  but  a  few  hours,  practically  ignorant  of  the  busi- 
ness, changed  more  or  less  every  year,  could  be  competent  to  conduct 
the  complicated  and  delicate  work  of  domestic  missions,  what  Avould 
the  friends  of  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society  think  of  such 
an  argument?  Would  they  not  say  that  we  know  better,  that  we 
know  very  Avell  that  it  is  not  the  fluctuating  subscribers  collected  for  a 
few  hours  at  the  "  business  meeting  of  the  Society,"  that  really  con- 
duct the  work  of  missions ;  but  that  this  matter  is  committed  to  a  corps 
of  able  and  efficient  men  always  at  their  post,  and  devoted  in  whole,  or 
in  part,  to  the  business  ?  Would  they  not  tell  us  that  the  society  was 
the  mere  appointing  and  controlling  body,  authorized  to  redress  grie- 
vances and  correct  abuses,  should  any  such  arise  ?  With  the  same 
propriety  we  may  ask  this  writer  and  his  friends,  if  they  do  not  know 
that  their  argument,  as  above  stated,  is  no  less  unfair  and  deceptive  ? 
Whether  they  are  not  aware  that  the  Board  and  its  executive  commit- 
tee appointed  by  the  Assembly,  a^e  as  permanent  as  their  own,  and  as 
much  conversant  with  the  work  of  missions  ?  We  think  the  General 
Assembly  need  not  shrink  from  a  comparison  with  the  Home  Mission- 
ary Society.  The  members  of  the  former  are  ordained  ministers  of  the 
gospel  and  ruling  elders  of  the  Churches,  men  whose  moral  and  re- 
ligious character  has  received  the  sanction  of  their  Christian  brethren 
in  various  forms.  The  members  of  the  latter  may  be,  and  we  have  no 
doubt  are,  very  good  men,  but  who  they  are,  it  is  hard  to  tell.  Any 
one  who  will  comply  with  the  rules  as  to  subscription,  &c.,  no  matter 
what  his  character,  has  as  much  right  to  vote  as  the  best  and  wisest 
members  of  the  body.  Again,  which  is  the  most  promiscuous,  fluctua- 
ting, and  uncertain  body  ?  Which  has  the  best  opportunity  of  know- 
ing and  inspecting  the  conduct  of  the  men  whom  they  appoint  ?  Does 
not  every  one  know  that  the  meetings  of  the  society  are  little  more 
than  matters  of  form,  that  every  thing  is  arranged  beforehand,  and 


424  CHURCH  POLITY. 

managed  by  the  executive  committee  ?  This,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  must  be  the  course  of  things.*  The  promiscuous  assemblage  col- 
lected for  a  few  hours  every  year,  cannot  be  expected  to  inspect  very 
minutely  the  complicated  doings  of  their  agents  for  the  preceding 
twelve  months.  We  are  not  presenting  these  considerations  as  argu- 
ments against  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  but  as  proof  of  the  un- 
soundness of  the  objections  urged  by  its  friends  against  ecclesiastical 
Boards. 

There  is  one  point  in  which  we  are  ready  to  admit  that  the  advan- 
tage is  with  the  Home  Missionary  Society.  Its  members  are  its  friends ; 
whereas,  in  the  General  Assembly,  we  have  foes  as  well  as  friends. 
Those  who  attend  the  meetings  of  the  former  are  supposed  to  be  in 
honour  and  honesty  bound  to  co-operate  in  promoting  its  success. 
Whereas,  members  of  the  Assembly  feel  at  liberty  to  do  all  they  can 
to  embarrass  the  operations  of  the  Board  of  JNIissions.  This  we  ac- 
knowledge is  a  great  disadvantage,  but  it  arises,  we  must  be  permitted 
to  think  and  say,  from  the  exceedingly  improper  conduct  of  the  oppo- 
nents of  that  Board,  So  long  as  a  majority  of  the  Church  wishes  there 
should  be  a  Board  of  Missions  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so 
long  is  it  the  duty  of  the  minority  to  allow  it  unembarrassed  operation. 
If  the  majority  of  the  churches  and  of  the  Assembly  are  of  opinion 
that,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  Board  should  cease 
to  exist,  let  them  so  decree.  But  it  is  evidently  most  unworthy  conduct 
for  a  minority,  by  combination  and  by  the  secrecy  of  a  ballot,  to  endea- 
vour to  harass  and  embarrass  a  Board  they  have  not  the  courage  or 
power  openly  to  destroy.  Of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  Home  Mission- 
ary party  in  the  last  Assembly,  the  attempt  to  place  in  the  Board  of 
Missions  men  known  to  be  inimical  to  its  very  existence,  is  certainly 
one  of  the  most  dishonourable.  And  what  renders  the  fact  the  more 
humiliating  and  the  more  alarming  is,  that  they  were  able  to  muster 
nearly  their  whole  strength  to  accomplish  this  object.  The  votes  in 
favour  of  the  candidates  unfriendly  to  the  Board  amounted  to  125, 
while  the  vote  against  Dr.  Miller's  resolution  was  but  122,  and  that 
against  the  formation  of  a  Foreign  Missionary  Board  only  111.  Let 
us  turn  the  tables.  Let  us  suppose  a  number  of  men  by  the  payment 
of  three  dollars,  or  whatever  the  subscription  may  be,  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  and  to  watch  their  opportunity 

*A  gentleman  who  was  present  at  an  anniversary  of  onp  of  the  large  national 
societies,  was  accosted  by  one  of  the  officers,  and  told  there  would  be  no  Board  of 
Managers  chosen  if  he  did  not  vote.  Being  informed  by  the  gentleman  that  he 
was  not  a  member,  the  officer  tlirew  a  handful  of  tickets  into  the  hat  and  walked 
off.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  degree  of  responsibility  felt  by  the  members  of 
Buch  societies.    They  are  sensible  the  business  all  rests  with  the  officers. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  425 

at  some  annual  meeting,  and  vote  out  the  present  executive  committee, 
and  supply  its  place  with  men  decidedly  hostile  to  the  existence  of  the 
Society,  what  would  be  the  feelings  of  the  religious  community  in  view 
of  such  conduct?  The  indignation  of  every  good  man  would  be  roused, 
and  the  impropriety  would  rebound  on  its  authors.  We  cannot  see  in 
what  respect  the  conduct  of  the  125  members  of  the  last  Assembly, 
just  referred  to,  is  less  deserving  of  disapprobation. 

2.  Our  author  proceeds  thus:  "We  maintain  that  Boards  thus 
constituted,  and  acting  under  so  wonderful  a  sanction  of  what  is  so 
little  understood,  are  the  most  irresponsible  bodies  that  could  be  de- 
vised. They  are  responsible  to  the  public  only  through  the  General 
Assembly,  and  that  body  gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  land,  changing 
every  year,  &c.,  &c."  This  argument  is  an  inference  from  the  preced- 
ing, and  must  stand  or  fall  with  it.  If  we  have  shown  the  fallacy  of 
objecting  to  the  Assembly  as  an  appointing  and  controlling  body,  for 
characteristics  which  it  possesses  in  common,  though  in  a  less  degree, 
with  the  appointing  body  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Home 
Missionary  Society,  there  is  little  reason  to  say  much  on  this  objection. 
In  what  way  is  that  executive  committee  responsible  to  the  public  for 
the  management  of  its  funds  and  conduct  of  its  agents?  Only  through 
the  transient,  fluctuating,  promiscuous,  inexperienced  body  of  sub- 
scribers who  may  happen  to  assemble  at  an  annual  meeting.  If  the 
public  are  dissatisfied,  they  may  indeed  withdraw  their  support,  and 
this  is  the  only  effectual  check.  But  are  not  the  Assembly's  Boards 
responsible  in  precisely  the  same  way?  If  they  act  improperly,  will 
not  the  public  withhold  their  contributions?  And  is  not  the  General 
Assembly  as  likely  to  be  vigilant  in  detecting  abuses,  and  is  it  not  as 
competent  for  this  purpose  as  the  transient  annual  meetings  of  the 
Home  Missionary  Society?  In  our  opinion,  the  advantage  in  this  com- 
parison is  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  Assembly.  Its  members  are 
known ;  they  are  the  representatives  of  the  churches.  The  members 
of  the  other  are  in  general  unknown.  Any  one  may  join  them;  they 
are  commonly  self-appointed  and  self- delegated.  As  all  Boards  are 
liable  to  abuses,  the  question  is,  whether  such  a  body  as  the  Assembly, 
or  such  an  one  as  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  is  best  constructed  to 
detect  and  correct  them?  Can  anyone  doubt  on  this  point  ?  The 
Assembly  must  assume  the  complexion,  not  of  any  one  party  or  section 
in  the  Church,  but  must  represent  all  parties  and  all  sections.  Is  such 
a  body  likely  to  be  less  vigilant  in  watching  the  conduct  of  its  servants, 
than  one  which  is  composed  almost  exclusively  of  men  of  one  way  of 
thinking  and  one  party?  Has  the  Secretary  of  the  one  Board  as  free 
a  scope  for  party-management  as  the  Secretary  of  the  other?  Can  the 
one  meet  the  General  Assembly  with  the  same  hope  of  ready  acqui- 


426  CHURCH  POLITY. 

escence  in  all  his  doings,  as  the  other  can  meet  his  assembled  subscribers 
at  an  annual  meeting?  Will  the  latter  find  any  Mr,  Jessup,  or  Dr. 
Peters,  or  Dr.  Patton  there,  to  recast  up  his  figures,  to  sift  with  jealous 
eye  his  statements,  to  examine  to  what  field  he  sends  his  missionaries, 
or  from  what  sources  he  derives  them  ?  As  far  then  as  responsibility 
to  the  churches,  and  security  for  good  management  are  concerned,, we 
think  there  can  be  no  comparison  between  the  two  institutions. 

3.  "By  conducting  all  her  concerns  ecclesiastically,  the  judicatories 
of  the  Church  would  be  loaded  with  an  amount  of  property  and  of  sec- 
ular business,  which  would  endanger  her  spiritually."  "  The  concen- 
tration, therefore,  in  these  courts,  of  so  much  ecclesiastical  and  pecu- 
niary power,  is  both  inexpedient  and  perilous."  The  author,  still 
further  to  alarm  his  readers,  makes  the  following  monstrous  supposi- 
tion :  "  Suppose  that  in  addition  to  this  (its  ecclesiastical  authority)  the 
Assembly  possesses  the  property  and  pecuniary  patronage  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  how  tremendous  must  be  the  power  of  this  judicatory." 
He  then  asks,  as  well  he  may,  "  Who  would  not  fear  before  this  Assem- 
bly ?  "  Does,  then,  the  writer  believe  that  it  is  proposed  to  invest  the 
Assembly  with  the  whole  property  of  the  Church  ?  The  whole  force  of 
this  representation  is  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  the  funds  con- 
tributed for  education  and  missionary  purposes,  come  into  the  treasury 
of  the  General  Assembly,  and  are  subject  to  its  control.  He  knows, 
however,  that  the  Boards  of  Education  and  Missions  have  each  a  trea- 
sury distinct  from  that  of  the  General  Assembly ;  and  that  the  funds 
contributed  to  these  Boards  are  received  and  paid  out  without  any  in- 
tervention of  the  Assembly  in  the  business.  The  Avriter  speaks  as 
though  these  vast  permanent  investments  were  to  be  held  by  the  As- 
sembly, which  might  tempt  the  "  cupidity  "  of  its  members.  Whereas 
almost  all  the  funds  in  question  are  the  annual  contributions  of  the 
churches  which  hardly  remain  a  day  in  the  treasury  of  the  Boards, 
and  which  are  given  only  so  long  as  the  churches  have  confidence  in 
their  faithful  distribution.  The  power  of  the  Assembly  is  hardly 
appreciably  increased  by  the  mere  right  of  ajDpointing  the  members  of 
this  Board,  and  then  adjourning  and  dispersing  itself  among  the 
churches,  to  be  renewed  the  next  year  by  new  members,  fresh  from  the 
presbyteries,  and  possessing  their  confidence.  The  pecuniary  power  of 
the  American  Board  of  Commissioners,  though  a  close  corporation, 
with  its  income  of  from  one  to  two  hundl-ed  thousand  dollars,  is  next  to 
nothing,  and  that  of  the  Assembly  is,  if  possible,  still  less. 

Whatever  danger  there  is  of  a  money  power  becoming  connected 
with  missionary  enterprises,  it  is  far  greater  in  regard  to  the  Home 
Missionary  Society  than  to  the  General  Assembly.  The  latter  body  is 
renewed  every  year ;  it  must  take  the  character  of  the  whole  Church, 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  427 

and  cannot  become  corrupt  until  the  Church  is  so.  The  former,  is  far 
less  certain  in  its  character,  being  composed  of  the  subscribers  for  the 
time  being,  who  may  happen  to  meet  in  New  York.  As  the  secretary 
and  officers  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society  can  manage  their  annual 
meetings  with  greater  ease  and  certainty  than  the  secretary  and  officers 
of  the  Board  of  Missions  can  control  the  General  Assembly,  so  the 
danger  of  abuse  and  malversation  is  greater  in  the  one  case  than  in  the 
other.  We  think,  however,  such  arguments  are  unbecoming  and  un- 
wise. The  wicked  are  sufficiently  disposed,  without  being  excited  to  it 
by  Christians,  to  cry  out  about  the  danger  of  ecclesiastical  authority, 
and  the  pecuniary  power  of  religious  institutions.  And  we  regret  that 
in  repelling  such  arguments  we  should  be  forced  even  to  appear  to  re- 
criminate. 

4.  His  last  argument  is  founded  on  a  distrust  "  of  the  relative  effi- 
ciency of  formal  ecclesiastical  organizations."  In  conducting  this,  as  in 
all  the  preceding  arguments,  we  find  our  author  presenting  the  num- 
erous, cumbrous  General  Assembly  in  contrast  with  the  compact  and 
alert  Boards  of  voluntary  societies ;  instead  of  comparing  the  Board 
of  the  one  with  that  of  the  other.  We  are  at  a  loss  to  imagine  why  a 
Board  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly  might  not  be  as  active  as 
if  appointed  by  the  same  men  assembled  as  a  voluntary  society.  The 
Boards  of  the  Assembly  are  not  so  much  behind  others  in  their  effi- 
ciency as  to  give  this  objection  either  much  plausibility  or  much 
weight. 

We  must  be  permitted  to  leave  for  a  moment  the  work  of  self-de- 
fence, and  to  assume,  in  our  turn,  the  office  of  objectors.  We  have 
always  readily  admitted  that  there  are  purposes  for  which  voluntary 
societies,  embracing  members  of  different  religious  denominations,  are 
greatly  to  be  preferred  to  separate  ecclesiastical  organizations.  And 
in  our  number  for  July  1836,  p.  429,  we  stated  at  least  one  principle 
by  which  such  cases  may  be  easily  distinguished.  Wherever  the  field 
of  operation  is  common  to  different  denominations,  and  the  proper 
means  for  its  cultivation  are  also  the  same  for  all,  there  is  an  obvious 
reason  why  all  should  unite.  These  conditions  meet  with  regard  to 
the  Bible  and  Tract  Societies,  and  in  many  important  respects  in  re- 
gard to  Sunday-school  Unions.  There  are  other  cases  in  which  vol- 
untary societies  of  a  denominational  character  may  be  either  indis- 
pensable or  highly  desirable.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  cases  for 
which  ecclesiastical  organizations  appear  to  us  to  be  entitled  to  decided 
preference.  To  this  class  belong  the  work  of  educating  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  and  that  of  missions.  We  shall  proceed  to  state  very 
briefly  some  of  the  grounds  of  this  opinion. 

In  the  first  place,  the  object  of  these  societies  is  strictly  ecclesiastical 


428  ciiuncii  POLITY. 

as  well  as  denominational.  Every  Churcli  lias  its  peculiar  system  of 
opinions  and  form  of  government,  which  it  is  bound  to  preserve  and 
extend.  And  in  order  to  effect  this  object  it  is  necessary  that  it  should 
jhave  under  its  own  direction  the  means  employed  for  its  accomplish- 
'ment.  Of  these  means  beyond  all  comparison  the  most  important  are 
the  education  of  ministers,  and  the  organization  and  support'  of 
Churches.  The  men  who  decide  where  and  how  the  rising  ministry  are 
to  be  educated,  and  who  determine  where  they  are  to  go  when  their' 
education  is  completed,  have  the  destiny  of  the  Church  in  their  hands. 
This  being  the  case,  is  it  wonderful  that  each  denomination  should 
wish  not  only  to  have  this  matter  under  their  own  control,  but  confided 
to  persons  of  its  own  selection?  Is  it  wonderful  that  Presbyterians 
and  Episcopalians  should  decline  committing  their  candidates  to  the 
care  of  Congregationalists  or  Baptists  ?  Or  that  they  should  be  uneasy 
at  seeing  their  churches  supplied  with  ministers  by  a  society  in  which 
some  other  denomination  than  their  own,  has  an  equal  or  controlling 
influence?  On  the  contrary,  would  not  indifference  on  these  points 
argue  a  strange  and  criminal  unconcern  about  what  they  profess  to  re- 
gard as  the  truth  and  order  of  God  ?  We  consider,  therefore,  the  ex- 
tension of  the  principle  of  united  action  by  voluntary  societies  to  cases 
affecting  the  vital  interests  of  separate  denominations  as  fraught  with 
evil.  Even  if  these  sects  ought  to  be  indifferent  to  their  respective 
peculiarities,  they  are  not,  and  the  attemj)t  to  deal  with  them  as  though 
they  were,  must  excite  ill-will  and  strife. 

The  answer  to  this  objection,  that  the  Education  and  Missionary  So- 
cieties do  nothing  but  provide  and  sustain  men  to  be  examined  and 
installed  by  the  judicatories  of  the  several  denominations,  is  very  far 
from  being  satisfactory.  The  mere  right  to  examine  before  presbytery 
the  candidates  for  ordination  is  not  the  only  security  which  the  Church 
needs  for  the  fidelity  of  her  ministers.  She  wishes  that  by  their  previ- 
ous training,  they  should  be  made  acquainted  with  her  doctrines,  and 
become  attached  to  her  order.  Reason  and  experience  alike  demon- 
strate that  the  perfunctory  examination  before  an  ecclesiastical  body  is 
altogether  an  inadequate  barrier  to  the  admission  of  improper  men  into 
the  ministry,  and  that  by  far  the  most  important  security  lies  in  the 
education  and  selection  of  the  ministers  themselves.  If  these  matters 
are  committed  to  other  hands,  every  thing  is  given  up. 

Again,  the  office  assumed  by  these  societies  involves  an  encroach- 
ment on  the  rights  and  duties  of  ecclesiastical  courts.  This  may  be 
inferred  from  what  has  already  been  said.  One  of  the  most  important 
duties  of  the  Church  in  her  organized  capacity  is  the  preservation  of 
the  truth.  It  is  her  business  to  see  that  faithful  men  are  introduced 
into  the  ministry  and  set  over  her  congregations.     To  discharge  this 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAEDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  429 

duty  properly,  slie  must  do  more  tlian  merely  examine  men  prepared 
and  sent  forth  by  other  hands.  She  must  herself  see  to  their  education 
and  mission.  These  are  in  a  great  measure  strictly  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions, which,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  incongruous  for  societies  composed 
for  the  most  part  of  laymen,  and  without  any  ecclesiastical  appoint- 
ment or  supervision  to  perform.  Indeed  it  is  one  of  the  anomalies  of 
the  times,  that  laymen  should  be  the  great  directors  and  controllers  of 
theological  education  and  domestic  missions. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  there  are  in  the  work  of  missions 
two  distinct  functions,  the  one  ecclesiastical,  the  other  secular.  The 
one  must  be  performed  by  Church  courts;  the  other  may  be  per- 
formed by  others.  To  the  former  belong  the  ordination,  mission, 
direction,  and  supervision  of  evangelists ;  to  the  latter  the  mere  provi- 
sion of  the  ways  and  means,  and  the  administration  of  them.  There  is 
a  great  difference  between  theory  and  practice  on  this  subject.  Accor- 
ding to  theory  the  committee  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society  may  be 
the  mere  almoners  of  the  churches'  bounty.  They  may  profess  simply 
to  stand  at  the  door  of  the  treasury  to  receive  applications  from  feeble 
congregation  and  presbyteries.  This  is  all  very  well.  But  if  in  prac- 
tice they  go  much  further  than  this,  and  assume  the  direction  of  eccle- 
siastical persons,  deciding  where  they  are  to  labour,  instructing  them 
as  to  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties,  and  requiring  their  missiona- 
ries to  report  to  them  on  all  these  points,  then  do  they  assume  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  an  ecclesiastical  court;  they  usurp  an  authori- 
ty and  power  which  do  not  belong  to  them,  and  which  they  have  no 
right  to  exercise.  People  may  cry  out  against  all  this  as  high  churqh- 
ism.  It  is  Presbyterianism.  And  if  they  dislike  it,  let  them  renounce 
it  and  the  name;  but  do  not  let  them  under  the  guise  of  Presbyterians 
undermine  the  whole  fabi'ic.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  according 
to  the  system  of  our  Church,  the  control  of  ecclesiastical  persons  rests 
with  ecclesiastical  courts.  Every  licentiate  and  minister  is  under  the 
direction  of  his  own  presbytery,  and  is  bound  to  go  where  they  send 
him,  and  to  stay  where  they  place  him.  It  is  to  them  he  is  responsible 
for  the  right  discharge  of  his  official  duties,  and  to  them  he  is  bound 
to  report.  For  any  set  of  men  to  assume  this  direction,  supervision 
and  control  of  such  licentiates  and  ministers,  is  a  direct  interference 
with  the  rights  of  presbyteries.  If  then,  the  Home  Missionary  Society 
practically  assumes  the  direction  and  supervision  of  its  four  or  six  hun- 
dred missionaries,  if  it  regards  them  as  its  missionaries,  sent  by  it,  de- 
termined directly  or  indirectly  as  to  the  place  or  character  of  their 
labours  by  its  authority  or  influence,  and  demanding  accountability  to 
that  society  or  its  committee,  whatever  be  the  theory  of  the  matter,  it 
is  a  practical  subversion  of  the  whole  system  of  our  Church. 


430  CHURCH  POLITY. 

It  may  be  replied  to  all  this  that  the  Board  of  Missions  appointed  by 
the  General  Assembly,  are  guilty  of  the  same  kind  of  interference  with 
the  rights  and  duties  of  ecclesiastical  courts.  To  this  we  answer,  even 
admitting  such  to  be  the  fact,  it  does  not  mend  the  matter.  Two 
wrongs  can  never  make  one  right.  But  we  deny  that  the  cases  are 
parallel.  The  Assembly's  Board  is  an  ecclesiastical  body.  It  is  the 
mere  organ  of  the  Assembly  in  conducting  missions.  All  its  members 
are  appointed  by  that  body,  and  its  acts  in  the  premises  are  virtually, 
the  acts  of  the  Assembly.  If  the  Assembly  has  "  a  constitutional  and 
inherent  right,  as  this  author  admits,  to  conduct  missionary  operations, 
it  must  have  the  authority  to  commit  this  business  to  a  Board  of  its 
own  appointment.  In  order  to  prove  this  point,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
attribute  to  the  Assembly  the  inordinate  powers  claimed  for  it,  on  several 
recent  occasions  by  our  New-school  brethren.  When  they  wished  to 
create  a  presbytery  without  the  concurrence  of  the  synod,  we  were  told 
glorious  things  of  the  power  of  the  Assembly ;  it  was  represented  as 
analogous  to  the  parliament  of  Great  Britain ;  it  was  called  the  great 
universal  presbytery,  vested  with  all  presbyterial  powers,  and  if  we 
mistake  not,  the  very  source  of  all  such  powers.  We  do  not  be- 
lieve all  this,  nor  is  faith  in  these  extravagant  positions  necessary  to 
lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that,  if  the  Assembly  has  a  right  to  conduct 
missions,  it  has  a  right  to  conduct  them  by  a  Board.  We  might  argue 
this  right  upon  the  acknowledged  principle  that  where  a  specific  power 
is  granted,  all  subordinate  powers  necessary  for  its  proper  exercise  are 
also  granted.  If  the  General  Assembly,  in  virtue  of  its  relation  to  the 
Church,  and  in  virtue  of  the  whole  design  of  the  constitution,  as  well 
as  express  provision,  has  the  right  to  conduct  missions,  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  that  more  or  less  of  this  business  should  be  confided  to  agents, 
it  matters  little  what  they  are  called.  The  right  to  conduct  missions 
belongs  to  the  presbyteries,  to  synods,  and  to  the  General  Assembly. 
Either  or  all  of  these  bodies  may  attend  to  this  business  while  actually 
in  session,  or  they  may  refer  the  matter  to  a  committee  to  do  it  for 
them.  Again  all  analogy  is  in  favour  of  the  possession  of  this  right ; 
analogies  derived  from  the  Church  of  Scotland,  from  the  action  of  our 
own  Assembly  in  similar  cases,  (as  in  the  constitution  of  Boards  for  the 
government  of  theological  seminaries,  &c.)  and  from  political  bodies. 
It  is  a  matter  of  every  day's  occurrence,  that  all  these  bodies  commit 
certain  duties  to  be  performed  in  their  name  and  by  their  authority  to 
boards  or  agents  of  their  own  appointment.  The  objection  that  if  the 
Assembly  can  confide  the  work  of  missions  to  a  Board,  they  may  com- 
mit the  hearing  of  appeals,  &c.,  is  about  as  forcible  as  the  objection 
that  if  parliament  or  congress  can  appoint  a  Board  of  public  works  or 
navy  commissioners,  they  may  appoint  a  committee  to  pass  bills  through 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAKDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  43I 

all  the  stages  of  legislation.  Besides,  this  is  a  point  which  has  been 
settled  by  precedent  and  uncontested  decisions  of  the  Assembly,  almost 
from  the  beginning.  Almost  from  the  first  moment  of  its  organization 
the  Assembly  has  had  a  standing  Committee  of  Missions,  wliich  did 
not  cease  to  exist  when  the  Assembly  adjourned.  In  the  year  1828  the 
Assembly  resolved,  That  the  Board  of  Missions  have  the  power  to 
establish  missions — to  select,  appoint  and  commission  missionaries, — 
and  in  general  to  manage  the  missionary  operations  of  the  General 
Assembly.  Who  contested  the  passage  of  this  resolution  ?  Who  ever 
dreamed,  before  the  meeting  of  the  late  Assembly,  of  declaring  it  a 
breach  of  the  constitution  ?  We  cannot  here  pursue  this  subject.  It 
is  clear,  however,  as  we  think,  that  the  Board  of  Missions,  and  commit- 
tee of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  stand  in  very  different  relations 
to  the  business  of  missions ;  that  what  in  the  one  is  a  decided  infringe- 
ment on  the  rights  and  duties  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  may  have  a  very 
difierent  character  in  the  other. 

It  has  already  been  intimated  that  one  great  objection  to  voluntary 
societies  for  the  purpose  of  domestic  missions  and  the  education  of  can- 
didates for  the  ministry,  is  the  power  which  they  possess.  We  are 
aware  that  the  use  of  this  argument  is  apt  to  excite  suspicion  against 
those  who  employ  it.  But  the  truth  ought  to  be  looked  at  dispassion- 
ately, and  allowed  its  proper  influence,  as  estimated  by  reason,  and  not 
by  an  excited  imagination,  or  distempered  feeling.*  We  say  then  that 
the  power  possessed  by  these  societies  is  inordinate  and  dangerous.  It 
is  a  power,  in  the  first  place,  to  control  the  theological  opinions  of 
candidates  by  the  direction  of  their  whole  professional  education  ;  and 
in  the  second  place,  by  means  of  these  candidates  thus  prepared,  exten- 
sively and  materially  to  influence  the  character  and  action  of  the 
Church.  It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  or  of  its 
executive  committee,  to  determine  what  character,  as  to  doctrine  and 
policy,  a  large  portion  of  our  presbyteries  shall  assume.  This  cannot 
always  be  done  at  once,  but  by  a  steady  purpose  and  a  gradual  pro- 
gress it  may  be  more  or  less  rapidly  accomplished.  And  this  progress 
will  not  be  slow,  if  three,  six,  or  ten  ministers  are  ordained  at  one  time, 
by  one  presbytery,  and  then  sent  to  one  neighbourhood.  It  would  re- 
quire little  skill  or  talent  for  management,  in  this  manner  to  decide  the 

*  The  writer,  with  unwonted  frankness,  on  pp.  180,  181,  gives  us  to  understand 
that  one  great  reason  why  his  friends  resisted  the  organization  of  a  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions  by  the  General  Assembly,  was  the  dread  of  the  power  it  would  give 
their  opponents.  The  majority  acted,  he  tells  us,  from  the  instinct  of  "self-preser- 
vation." He  moreover  clearly  intimates,  that  the  desire  of  power  was  the  great 
motive  which  actuated  the  advocates  of  such  a  Board.  Their  professions  of  pious 
and  benevolent  motives,  he  very  clearly  regards  as  entirely  hypocritical. 


432  CHURCH  POLITY. 

complexion  of  any  presbytery  where  there  are  many  new  and  feeble 
congregations. 

But  further,  this  power  enters  our  judicatories,  and  is  there  brought 
to  bear  on  questions  of  doctrine,  of  order  and  discipline.  This  results 
not  merely  indirectly  from  the  ascendency  obtained  in  congregations 
and  presbyteries,  but  from  the  influence  which  the  prominent  friends 
and  officers  of  these  societies  possess  over  those  connected  with  them. 
In  assuming  the  existence  of  such  influence,  we  make  no  disparaging 
reflection  on  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it,  beyond  the  assumption 
that  they  are  men  of  like  passions  and  infirmities  with  others.  It  is  no 
reflection  to  assume  that  a  set  of  men  Avho  owe  their  support  to  the 
kindness  or  agency  of  another  set,  and  who  have  the  natural  feeling  of 
obligation  which  arises  from  this  fact,  and  who  are  oj)cn  to  the  usual  in- 
nocent and  even  amiable  sentiments  which  arise  from  association  and 
co-operation,  should  be  led  to  act  with  their  benefactors  and  to  follow 
them  as  their  natural  leaders. 

We  say  this  is  a  dangerous  power,  because  it  is  apt  to  be  unobserved. 
It  is  not  the  acknowledged  authority  of  a  prelatical  bishop  ascertained 
and  limited  by  law,  of  an  officer  who  has  been  elected  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  being  the  depository  of  this  power.  But  it  is  au  incident,  a 
perquisite,  a  matter  not  taken  into  the  account,  without  being,  for  that 
reason,  the  less  real,  or  the  less  extensive.  It  is  dangerous,  moreover, 
because  it  arises  out  of  the  Church,  and  yet  is  made  to  bear  ujDon  all  its 
internal  operations.  It  is  not  the  influence  which  superiority  of  wis- 
dom, experience,  piety  or  talent  bestows  on  one  member  of  a  judicatory 
above  his  fellows ;  but  it  is  an  influence  Avhich  cannot  be  met  and 
counteracted  within  the  sphere  of  its  operation.  Again,  it  is  dangerous, 
because  pre-eminently  irresponsible.  This  irresponsibility  arises  from 
various  sources;  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  an  official 'influence  con- 
ferred by  law,  that  it  is  intangible  and  secret,  that  those  who  wield  it 
are  independent  of  those  on  whom  it  operates.  It  is  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  are  not  appointed  by  the  Church  or  responsible  to 
it ;  of  men  who  owe  their  station  to  votes  of  a  society  composed  of 
persons  of  various  denominations,  who  may  be  decidedly  hostile  to 
what  the  majority  of  our  Church  considers  its  best  interests.  All  that 
we  have  already  said  to  show  that  a  society,  composed  as  the  Home 
Missionary  Society  is,  is  far  less  safe  and  efficient  as  an  appointing  and 
controlling  body  than  the  General  Assembly,  goes  to  prove  the  peculiar 
irresponsibility  of  the  influence  of  which  we  are  now  speaking.  Can  it 
be  doubted  that  if  the  secretary  of  that  Society  had  formed  the  pur- 
pose of  doing  all  he  could  to  influence  the  theological  character  of 
particular  presbyteries,  and  to  control  their  course  of  policy,  he  might 
prosecute  this  purpose  long  and  eflTcctually  without  exciting  the  notice 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  433 

or  animadversion  of  the  Society  itself?  This  is  not  a  purpose  to  be 
announced  to  his  unsophisticated  and  pious  lay-associates.  Their  co- 
operation might  be  secured  without  their  ever  conceiving  of  any  other 
bearing  of  their  measures,  than  on  the  wants  and  wishes  of  the  desti- 
tute. 

Besides,  this  influence  is  irresponsible,  because  the  society  in  which 
the  control  is  vested,  is  uncertain,  fluctuating,  and  unknown.  Can  any 
one  tell  who  constituted  the  last  annual  meeting,  or  predict  who  will 
constitute  the  next  ?  Can  any  one  know  whether  the  majority  was 
Presbyterian  or  Congregational?  Whether  they  were  from  New 
Haven  or  East  AVindsor?  Our  author  has  undertaken  to  present  his 
objections  to  ecclesiastical  Boards.  We  must  be  permitted  to  point  out 
the  weak  places  on  the  other  side.  We  say,  then,  that  it  is  a  great  ob- 
jection to  a  society  constituted  for  the  purj^oses  of  domestic  missions, 
that  the  Church  possesses  no  adequate  security  for  the  character  and 
opinions  of  its  members.  They  may  be  good  and  they  may  be  bad,  but 
what  the  character  of  the  majority  at  an  annual  meeting  may  be,  who 
can  tell?  What  security  is  there  that  they  shall  be  even  professors  of 
religion,  much  less  that  they  approve  of  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Is  it  no  advantage  on  the  other  side,  that 
the  members  who  appoint  and  control  the  Board,  are  men  who  have 
adopted  our  standards,  and  who  are  as  ministers  and  elders  known  to 
the  churches?  This  is  no  captious  objection.  Its  importance  is  so 
great  and  so  obvious  that,  to  avoid  this  difficulty,  the  founders  of  the 
American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  preferred 
forming  themselves  into  a  close  corporation,  rather  than  be  exposed  to 
the  uncertainty  and  instability  of  a  voluntary  society.  It  is  time  for  the 
advocates  of  voluntary  institutions  to  be  ashamed  of  appealing  to  the 
American  Board,  whose  organization  is  a  most  pointed  condemnation 
of  their  favourite  principle. 

Finally,  another  dangerous  feature  of  this  influence  is  its  concen- 
tration in  the  hands  of  a  few  persons.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
Society,  from  its  organization,  and  from  the  short  time  which  it  remains 
in  session,  can  have  little  oversight  or  control  over  the  operations  of 
its  officers.  These  officers  are,  in  fact,  almost  the  sole  depositories  of 
the  whole  of  the  power  which  arises  from  the  employment  of  nu- 
merous agents,  the  disbursement  of  thousands  of  dollars,  and  the  sup- 
port of  hundreds  of  ministers.  And  just  in  proportion  to  their  facili- 
ties for  controlling  the  society  to  which  they  belong,  are  their  indepen- 
dence and  irresponsibilty. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  influence  must  exist  somewhere,  if  not  in  the 
hands  of  the  officers  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  that  it  will  fall 
to  those  of  the  Boards  of  the  General  Assembly.  If  it  must  exist,  then 
28 


431  CHURCH  POLITY. 

it  is  of  the  first  importance  that  it  should  be  subjected  to  every  possi- 
ble check  and  to  the  strictest  accountability.  We  believe,  however, 
from  the  difference  of  their  organization,  especially  as  it  relates  to  the 
Board  of  Education,  the  power  in  the  one  case  is  far  less  than  it  is  in 
the  other.  And  we  have  already  said  enough  to  show  that  it  is  more 
natural  and  safe,  more  closely  watched  and  guarded,  when  exercised 
by  men  appointed  by  the  Church  in  her  organized  capacity,  than  when 
wielded  by  the  hands  of  irresponsible  voluntary  societies. 

It  will  be  seen  that  few  of  our  arguments  have  any  bearing  on  the 
American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions.  We  cheer- 
fully admit  that  our  objections  to  this  institution  are  far  less  strong, 
and  that  they  do  not  interfere  with  our  entertaining  for  it  the  highest 
respect  and  confidence.  It  is  only  by  a  strange  solecism  that  this  so- 
ciety is  called  a  voluntary  association  ;  it  has,  in  fact,  less  of  the  char- 
acter than  any  similar  institution  in  our  land,  though  it  seems  on  this 
account  to  forfeit  none  of  the  esteem  of  those  who  are  forever  insisting 
on  the  necessity  and  excellence  of  the  voluntary  principle.  The  power 
of  this  society  is  comparatively  small,  and  there  is  little  temptation  to 
abuse  what  it  does  possess.  So  long  as  it  continues  the  course  which  it 
has  hitherto  pursued,  and  keeps  itself  aloof  from  the  internal  conten- 
tions of  the  Church,  abstaining  from  all  attempts  to  influence  the  de- 
cision of  its  judicatories  on  the  missionary,  as  well  as  other  questions, 
we  are  sure  it  will  have  the  prayers,  the  confidence,  and  suj^port  of  the 
churches. 

There  is  one  other  remark  which  we  wish  to  make  in  the  conclusion 
of  this  part  of  our  article.  We  have  never  been  opposed  to  the  exis- 
tence of  voluntary  societies.  While  we  have  had  our  decided  prefer- 
ence for  ecclesiastical  organizations,  we  have  felt  perfectly  willing  that 
those  who  differed  from  us  should  take  their  own  course  in  doing  the 
work  of  the  Lord.  Believing  that  there  was  a  large  part  of  the  Church 
who  would  not  co-operate  with  the  Boards  of  the  General  Assembly, 
we  have  rejoiced  that  they  had  institutions  through  which  their  ener- 
gies might  be  exerted  in  doing  good.  It  was  only  in  repelling  the  ar- 
guments of  their  exclusive  friends  against  the  institutions  of  the  Church 
that  we  were  led,  in  our  number  for  July  last,  to  animadvert  in  any 
measure  on  the  evils  connected  with  the  operations  of  these  societies. 
And  now,  we  are  writing  in  opposition  to  a  formal  and  laboured  assault 
against  the  Boards  of  the  Church,  combined  with  an  extended  perso- 
nal attack  upon  ourselves.  We  are,  therefore,  not  to  be  considered  as 
aggressors  in  this  business.  And  while  we  have  a  deep  conviction  that 
the  Home  Missionary  Society,  under  the  management  of  its  secretary, 
has  become  a  great  party  engine,  operating  most  unfixvourably  for  the 
peace,  union,  and  purity  of  the  Church  ;  we,  at  the  same  time,  believe 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  435 

that  his  lay-associates  are  in  a  great  measure  innocent  in  this  matter. 
With  them,  therefore,  we  have  no  controversy,  and  for  them  we  enter- 
tain undiminished  confidence  and  affection. 

b.   Warrant  for  the  Boards.  [*] 

[Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xviii. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  422./.] 

The  first  subject  of  importance  which  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
Assembly,  was  the  reorganization  of  the  Boards  of  the  Church.  On 
this  and  its  collateral  subjects,  the  last  General  Assembly  had  ap- 
pointed two  committees,  and  directed  them  to  report  to  the  present 
Assembly.  Of  one  of  these  committees,  the  Rev.  Dr.  B.  M.  Smith,  of 
Virginia,  was  the  chairman,  and  of  the  other,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Humphrey, 
of  Kentucky.  On  the  first  day  of  the  sessions,  Dr.  Smith  ofiered  the 
following  resoljution,  which  was  adopted,  viz. : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  fifteen  be  appointed,  to  whom  shall  be  referred 
the  overture  of  the  last  Assembly  on  the  subject  of  Reorganizing  the  Boards  of  the 
(Jhurch,  and  the  Church  Extension  Committee. 

To  this  committee  was  referred  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed 
last  year,  without  reading  it  to  the  house,  and  other  papers  connected 
with  the  subject.  Towards  the  close  of  the  sessions  this  committee  of 
fifteen  reported  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  1.  That  at  each  meeting  of  the  Assembly  the  Boards  shall  present 
their  Records  with  their  Annual  Report. 

Resolved,  2.  That  the  Boards  and  Church  Extension  Committee  shall  elect  to 
office  their  Secretaries  for  not  less  than  four  years;  and  the  Assembly  shall  have 
power  always  to  remove  a  Secretary  for  neglect  of  duty,  or  other  sufficient  ground. 

Resolved,  3.  That  the  Boards  and  Church  Extension  Committee  be  hereafter 
composed  of  twenty  members  each,  to  be  elected  in  four  classes,  as  formerly;  be- 
sides the  Secretary  or  Secretaries  to  be  members  ex  officio. 

Resolved,  4.  That  these  Boards  shall  henceforth  conduct  their  business  without 
the  employment  of  Executive  Committees. 

Resolved,  5.  That  five  members  shall  be  a  quorum,  except  for  the  election  of 
officers,  when  fifteen  shall  be  a  quonim. 

Resolved,  6.  That  this  Assembly  now  proceed  to  elect  members  of  the  Boards. 

Resolved,  7.  That  all  acts  inconsistent  with  this  action  be  repealed. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Armstrong,  these  resolutions  were  laid  on  the 
table  without  debate,  with  the  view  of  taking  up  another  series  pre- 
sented by  Dr.  Krebs. 

The  committee  of  the  last  Assembly,  of  which  Dr.  Humphrey  was 
chairman,  was,  in  his  absence,  represented  by  Dr.  Boardman,  who  read 

[*  From  article  on  "  TTie  General  Assembly  ;'^  Topic,  "Reorganization  of  the  Boards," 
Princeton  Review,  1860,  p.  511.] 


436  CHUECH  POLITY. 

the  report  and  offered  a  series  of  resolutions.  The  first  of  these  was, 
that  it  is  inexpedient  to  make  any  organic  change  in  the  constitution 
of  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions.  The  second  resolution,  which 
recommended  that  there  should  be  no  Executive  Committee  but  the 
one  in  Philadelphia,  was  referred  to  the  next  Assembly.  The  third 
resolution,  so  far  as  it  recommended  the  appointment  of  an  Advisory 
Committee  at  San  Francisco,  was  adopted.  The  fourth,  which  pro- 
posed that  the  Board  should  appoint  one  Corresponding  and  one  Tra- 
velling Secretary,  was  said  upon  the  table. 

The  first  of  these  resolutions,  as  it  brought  up  the  whole  subject,  was 
discussed  with  great  earnestness,  and  at  great  length.  The  debate  was 
continued  from  day  to  day,  until  the  close  of  the  eighth  day  of  the 
sessions,  Avhen  the  resolution  was  adopted.  The  yeas  and  nays  were 
called,  and  the  result  was,  yeas  234,  nays  56.  These  numbers  were 
slightly  increased  by  absentees  being  permitted  to  reco;-d  their  votes, 
making  the  yeas  240,  and  the  nays  about  60.  On  the  ninth  day,  Dr. 
Thornwell  presented  a  protest  against  the  above  decision,  which  was 
referred  to  a  committee,  of  which  Dr.  William  Brown,  of  Virginia, 
was  made  chairmao,  to  be  answered.  When,  however,  the  resolutions 
above  referred  to,  introduced  by  Dr.  Krebs,  were  adopted,  Dr.  Thorn- 
well  withdrew  his  protest,  with  the  leave  of  the  house. 

The  resolutions  presented  by  Dr.  Krebs  are  as  follows : 

Resolved,  1.  By  this  General  Assembly,  that  the  Secretaries  of  the  Boards  of  the 
Church  be  instructed  to  notify  the  members  thereof  of  their  appointment,  and  of 
all  the  meetings  of  the  Boards,  whether  stated  or  special ;  and  when  such  meetings 
are  for  special  purposes,  the  subject  for  discussion  shall  be  mentioned  in  the  no- 
tice. 

Resolved,  2.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  above  named  Boards  to  send  up  to 
the  Assembly,  with  their  Annual  Eeports,  their  books  of  minutes  of  the  respective 
Executive  Committees,  for  examination;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Commit- 
tees to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Assembly  any  matters  which,  in  their  judg- 
ment, call  for  the  notice  of  the  Assembly. 

Resolved,  3.  That  it  is  not  lawful  for  either  of  the  above  named  Boards  to  issue 
certificates  of  life  membersliip  to  any  person,  or  any  testimonial,  by  virtue  of 
which  any  person  is  permitted  to  sit,  deliberate  and  vote  with  the  Boards;  but 
the  Boards  may  devise  and  grant  certificates  or  testimonials  of  special  donations 
to  the  class  of  persons  hitherto  known  as  honorary  member? — it  being  understood 
and  provided  that  such  persons  can  in  no  sense  be  allowed  by  purchase  or  gift,  to 
exercise  any  sort  of  right  or  position  to  deliberate  and  vote  with  the  members  ap- 
pointed by  the  General  Assembly. 

Thus  was  this  exciting  subject  finally  settled,  as  by  common  consent; 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  not  again  be  agitated,  but  the  Church 
be  allowed  to  go  on  unimpeded  and  united  in  her  great  work  of  mis- 
sionary labour. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  437 

It  would  be  in  vain  to  attempt  to  present  any  adequate  report  of  this 
protracted  debate.  To  reprint  the  speeches  as  furnished  in  the  papers, 
would  fill  up  our  pages  with  matter  already  in  the  hands  of  our  readers. 
We  shall  attempt  nothing  more  than  the  merest  synopsis  of  the  argu- 
ments urged  on  either  side.  1.  It  was  argued  by  Dr.  B.  M.  Smith, 
that  there  were  two  kinds  of  government  in  the  Church — the  one 
founded  on  principle,  the  other  on  expediency.  Voluntary  societies 
were  the  product  of  the  latter.  They  had  proved  among  Congrega- 
tionalists  very  efficient.  It  was  natural  that  men  coming  into  our 
Church  from  New  England,  should  bring  with  them  some  of  the  leaven 
of  the  system  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed.  As  a  counterweight 
to  these  voluntary  societies,  our  Boards  were  created.  They  were  the 
fruit  of  expediency.  They  were  intended  to  do  for  us  what  voluntary 
societies  had  done  for  New  England — to  enlist  the  influence  of  leading 
men  in  all  parts  of  the  Church,  by  making  them  members  of  these 
Boards,  which  were  a  fungus  growth,  mere  excrescences  on  our  system. 
2.  He  urged  that  the  Boards  did  nothing.  The  whole  work  was  done 
by  the  Executive  Committees.  The  Boards  were,  therefore,  an  unneces- 
sary incumbrance.  3.  The  mode  of  their  election  was  ridiculous,  and 
showed  that  the  whole  thing  was  a  farce.  Nobody  took  any  interest  in 
the  choice,  because  everybody  saw  that  those  elected  were  not  expected 
to  do  anything.  Sometimes  the  wrong  men  had  been  elected,  4.  He 
thought  there  was  danger  that  these  large  Boards  might  pack  the 
Assembly,  and  control  its  action.  A  small  body  could  be  more  easily 
managed  and  kept  in  due  subordination  to  the  Assembly.  He  admitted 
the  right  of  the  Assembly  to  act  by  an  organization  outside  of  itself, 
but  insisted  that  this  organization  should  be  a  small  body  and  immedi- 
ately dependent  on  the  Assembly,  without  the  intervention  of  any 
unnecessary  corporation. 

Dr.  Adger's  argument  was  founded  principally  on  the  inefficiency  of 
the  present  system.  He  said  that  $118,000  a  year  was  a  very  poor  con- 
tribution for  a  Church  which  could  and  should  raise  a  million  dollars 
annually  for  this  great  work.  Your  report  says  that  the  average  sala- 
ries of  your  missionaries  is  $536,  when  $1,000  would  not  be  too 
much.  Only  1705  churches  contribute  to  this  fund,  while  1783 
churches  are  non-contributing.  They  do  not  contribute,  he  said,  be- 
cause they  do  not  like  the  system.  2.  He  insisted  that  the  system  was 
wrong.  God  has  given  us  a  divine  system  of  government — Sessions, 
Presbyteries,  and  Synods.  The  synod  should  not  do  the  work  of  a 
presbytery,  nor  a  presbytery  of  a  session ;  much  less  should  a  Board  be 
allowed  to  do  the  work  of  the  presbyteries.  Every  presbytery  should 
attend  to  the  work  of  missions  within  its  own  bounds ;  the  proper  field 
for  the  Board  was  outside  and  beyond  our  ecclesiastical  territories.     It 


438  CHURCH  POLITY. 

is  its  business  to  follow  the  emigrants  to  New  Mexico,  Utah,  Dacotah, 
&c.,  with  the  missionary  and  the  means  of  grace.  Each  presbytery- 
having  performed  what  was  necessary  within  its  own  borders,  should 
send  its  surplus  funds  to  a  Central  Committee,  by  which  they  should 
be  used  for  missionary  operations  beyond  the  borders  of  the  Church,  and 
to  aid  the  feebler  presbyteries  who  need  help  to  do  the  work  within 
their  own  limits.  3.  The  Board  system  is  not  only  wrong  in  principle 
and  inefficient  in  operation,  but  it  fails  to  unite  the  Church  and  call 
forth  its  energies.  We  want,  he  said,  to  co-operate  with  you,  but  we 
must  work  apart  if  you  insist  on  your  present  system.  We  want  to 
operate  through  our  presbyteries,  synods,  and  General  Assembly. 
Boards  have  no  life  in  them.  The  presbyteries  do  not  feel  any  interest 
in  the  work  of  missions.  They  say  the  great  Board  in  Philadelphia 
will  attend  to  it.  4.  It  was  strenuously  urged  on  this  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, that  the  Boards  were  an  incumbrance ;  that  they  did  nothing ; 
that  they  stood  in  the  way  between  the  Assembly  and  the  Executive 
Committees,  shielding  the  latter  from  direct  responsibility  to  the  Church, 
and  yet  exercising  no  real  inspection  or  control  over  them. 

Dr.  Thornwell  took  higher  ground.  He  argued  the  question  as  one 
of  principle,  as  involving  radically  different  views,  on  the  one  side,  and 
on  the  other,  of  the  nature  and  powers  of  the  Church.  His  speeches 
on  this  subject  were  very  long  and  very  ardent.  They  are  of  course 
imperfectly  reported,  and  we  can  only  give  the  heads  of  his  argument 
as  presented  in  the  public  papers.  1.  He  insisted  that  God  had  laid 
down  in  the  Scripture  a  form  of  Ctuirch  government,  from  which  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  depart.  We  can  neither  add  to  it  nor  detract 
from  it.  We  can  no  more  create  a  new  office,  or  a  new  organ  for  the 
Church,  than  we  can  create  a  new  article  of  faith,  or  a  new  precept  for 
the  moral  law.  It  is  not  enough  that  a  thing  is  not  forbidden  in  the 
word  of  God,  it  must  be  expressly  enjoined  or  implied  by  necessary  in- 
ference. We  must  be  able  to  plead  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  for  every 
organization  or  agency  which  we  employ  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  the 
Church.  We  have  no  "  discretionary  power  to  create  a  new  Church 
court,  or  judicatory,  or  anything  to  stand  in  the  place  of,  or  to  perform 
the  duty  which  belongs  to  the  Church  of  God's  creation  and  ordina- 
tion." As  Christ  gave  his  Church  with  its  officers,  courts,  and  laws, 
with  a  specific  mission  to  accomplish  in  this  apostate  world,  we  cannot 
appoint  another  co-ordinate  body  to  do  the  work  which  he  appointed 
us  to  do.  The  General  Assembly  is  the  Board  of  Missions,  the  body 
which  must  be  appealed  to  to  do  the  work;  Christ  never  authorized  us 
to  put  it  into  other  hands.  2.  The  powers  which  Christ  has  given  his 
Church  cannot  be  transferred.  She  cannot  impose  her  responsibilities 
on  any  other  body.     A  Christian  cannot  pray  or  live  a  holy  life  by 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAEDS  AND  COMMITTEES  439 

proxy.  Congress  cannot  delegate  its  right  of  legislation  to  any  organi- 
zation of  its  own  creation.  It  must  itself  make  the  laws.  In  like 
manner  this  General  Assembly  cannot  transfer  the  power  or  the  obli- 
gation to  conduct  the  work  of  missions.  It  must  be  done  by  the  As- 
sembly itself.  3.  It  follows  from  these  principles  that  the  Boards  are 
unscriptural.  No  one  pretends  that  they  are  expressly  enjoined  in  the 
Bible.  It  is  not  enough  that  they  are  not  forbidden.  Neither  are 
they  absolutely  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  the 
Church.  And  if  neither  expressly  commanded  nor  necessarily  implied 
in  the  powers  explicitly  granted,  they  are  absolutely  unlawful.  4. 
That  the  Boards  are  thus  uncomraanded  and  unauthorized  creations 
was  argued  because  they  are  distinct  organizations.  They  are  bodies 
complete  in  themselves,  with  members,  heads,  and  hands.  They  have 
their  presidents,  executive  committees  and  other  officers.  They  are 
therefore  as  complete  self-acting  organizations  as  our  presbyteries  or 
synods.  The  General  Assembly,  indeed,  can  either  review  its  action 
or  dissolve  them  at  its  pleasure  ;  but  the  same  may  be  said  of  presby- 
teries and  synods.  5.  The  existence  of  these  Boards,  therefore,  is  de- 
rogatory to  the  Church,  as  implying  that  her  divine  constitution  is  not 
sufficient.  They  are  an  indignity  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  as 
implying  that  he  has  not  furnished  her  with  an  organization  adequate 
to  the  work  which  he  has  given  her  to  perform.  6.  This  discretionary 
power  of  the  Church,  the  principle  that  what  was  not  forbidden  is  per- 
mitted, was  the  point  of  difference  between  the  Puritans  and  the 
Church  of  England.  Herber's  idea  was  that  the  only  limitation  of  the 
power  of  the  Church  was  the  non-contradiction  of  the  Bible ;  it  does 
not  forbid  the  liturgy,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  kneeling  at  the  Eu- 
charist, therefore  these  things  are  right ;  while  the  Puritans  contended 
they  are  not  enjoined  in  the  Bible,  and  an  absence  of  a  grant  is  a  ne- 
gation of  the  power.  Our  covenant  fathers  in  Scotland  fought  for  the 
same  principle.  7.  This  is  with  us  a  res  adjudicata.  The  General  As- 
sembly at  Nashville  refused  to  constitute  a  Board  of  Church  Exten- 
sion, but  did  constitute  a  Committee  for  that  purpose,  which  had 
operated  successfully.  8.  Special  objection  was  made  to  honorary  or 
life  members  of  these  Boards.  Although  not  allowed  to  vote,  such 
members  were  entitled  to  meet  with  the  Boards,  and  deliberate  on  all 
questions  which  come  before  them.  Thus  for  money,  any  man  can  se- 
cure for  himself  or  for  another  this  position  in  the  Church,  or  in  its 
organisms,  for  the  conduct  of  the  work  of  missions.  This  was  repre- 
sented as  a  great  enormity.  These,  as  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the 
report,  were  the  principal  heads  of  Dr.  Thornwell's  argument.  The 
points  made  by  the  other  speakers  on  the  same  side,  were  of  course, 
with  more  or  less  prominence,  made  by  him. 


440  CHUECH  POLITY. 

Dr.  Spring  and  the  Hon.  Mr.  Galloway  made  short  and  eifective 
speeches,  the  one  in  reply  to  Dr.  Smith,  and  the  other  in  answer  to  Dr. 
Adger,  and  the  debate  was  continued  principally  by  Drs.  Krebs,  Board- 
man  and  Hodge.  1.  It  was  shown  that  the  assertion,  that  our  Boards, 
had  a  New  England  origin  and  were  founded  on  expediency  as  distin- 
guished from  principle,  is  contrary  to  historical  facts.  The  men  who 
originated  our  Boards  were  not  men  of  New  England  origin,  or  im- 
bued with  New  England  ideas,  but  precisely  the  reverse.  Our  Church 
from  the  beginning  had  acted  on  the  principle  that  the  Church  itself 
was  bound  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature ;  that  this  commis- 
sion involved  the  duty  and  the  authority  to  train  men  for  the  min- 
istry, to  send  them  forth,  to  sustain  them  in  the  field,  and  to  furnish 
them  with  all  the  appliances  requisite  for  the  successful  prosecution 
of  their  great  object.  This  work  the  Church  cannot  perform  by  its 
scattered  members,  nor  by  its  regular  judicatories  meeting  at  long  in- 
tervals and  for  short  periods,  and  therefore  there  was  a  necessity  for 
the  appointment  of  distinct  organizations  for  the  accomplishment  of 
the  object.  Hence  the  original  Committee  of  ]\Iissions.  But  as  the 
Church  enlarged,  there  was  a  call  for  a  division  of  labour,  and  for 
more  efficient  arrangements.  This  gave  rise  to  the  formation  of  the 
Boards  of  Domestic  Missions,  Foreign  Missions,  Education,  Publica- 
tion, and  Committee  of  Church  Extension.  These  were  the  legitimate 
outgrowths  of  our  own  principles,  and  not  foreign  organisms  engrafted 
into  our  system. 

2.  As  to  the  principle  that  everything  must  be  prescribed  in  the 
"word  of  God  as  to  the  government  and  modes  of  operation  of  the 
Church,  or  be  unlawful,  it  was  urged  that  no  Church  ever  existed 
that  was  organized  on  that  principle.  Every  Church  that  pleaded  a 
jus  divinum  for  its  form  of  government,  was  content  to  claim  divine 
authority  for  the  essential  elements  of  their  system,  while  they 
claimed  a  discretionary  power  as  to  matters  of  detail  and  modes  of 
operation ;  that  it  was  absurd  to  do  more  than  this  with  regard  to  our 
own  system.  The  great  principles  of  Presbyterianism  are  in  the 
Bible ;  but  it  is  j^reposterous  to  assert  that  our  whole  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline is  there.  This  would  be  to  carry  the  theory  of  divine  right 
beyond  the  limits  even  of  the  Old  Testament  economy,  and  make 
the  gospel  dispensation,  designed  for  the  whole  world,  more  restricted 
and  slavish  than  the  Jewish,  although  it  was  designed  for  only  one 
nation,  and  for  a  limited  period.  It  was  further  urged,  that  this 
theory  was  utterly  unscriptural,  as  the  New  Testament  was  far 
from  exalting  matters  of  government  and  external  organization 
to  the  same  level  with  matters  of  doctrine  and  morals.  It  was 
shown  also  to  be  an  utterly  impracticable  and  suicidal  theory.     If 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAKDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  441 

this  doctrine  were  true,  we  could  have  no  Church-schools,  nor  acade- 
mies, colleges,  nor  theological  seminaries.  No  one  pretended  to  claim 
for  these  an  explicit  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  The  work  of  missions 
on  this  theory  would  be  impracticable,  for  it  would  be  impossible  to 
carry  it  out  among  heathen  converts.  The  Church  must  have  freedom 
to  adapt  herself  to  the  varying  circumstances  in  which  she  is  called  to 
act.  The  great  objection,  however,  to  this  new  and  extreme  doctrine 
is,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  our  Christian  liberty,  our  liberty 
of  conscience.  It  inevitably  leads  to  the  imposition  of  human 
ordinances  as  the  commandments  of  God.  The  inferences  which 
one  draws  from  Scripture  bind  him,  but  they  have  no  authority 
for  others.  It  is  not  only  revolting,  but  ridiculous,  to  say  that 
the  Bible  forbids  a  Board  and  commands  a  Committee ;  that  to 
organize  the  one  is  rebellion,  while  to  constitute  the  other  is  obedience. 
And  finally,  as  to  this  point,  it  was  shown  that  every  objection  urged 
on  this  high,  jus  divinum  theory  against  the  Boards,  bears  with  equal 
force  against  Committees.  The  one  is  no  more  enjoined  than  the 
other.  The  one  can  be  just  as  well  inferred  as  the  other.  We 
have  a  work  to  do,  and  it  is  admitted  that  we  are  to  adopt  the 
best  means  for  doing  it.  If  we  think  a  Board  better,  we  may  take 
that ;  if  we  think  a  Committee  better,  we  may  take  that.  There  is  as 
much  a  transfer  of  authority  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  A  Com- 
mittee is  just  as  much  an  organization,  acting  of  itself  after  the  appoint- 
ing body  ceases  to  exist,  as  a  Board.  The  only  difference  between  the 
Committee  of  Church  Extension  and  the  Board  of  Missions  is,  that  the 
one  consists  of  some  eighty  or  ninety  members,  the  other  of  thirty  or 
forty.  To  make  this  difference  a  matter  of  vital  principle,  a  question 
of  divine  right,  the  dividing  line  between  rebellion  and  obedience  is 
utterly  unreasonable.  But  if  it  should  be  admitted  that  there  is  some 
minute  difference  in  principle  between  such  a  Committee  as  that  of 
Church  Extension  and  a  Board,  what  was  to  be  said  of  the  Boards  of 
our  Theological  Seminaries  ?  iSTo  objection  is  made  to  them,  and  yet 
they  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Assembly  as  the  Board  of  Mis- 
sions. If  the  one  is  an  organization  outside  the  Church,  so  are 
the  others.  If  the  one  has  delegated  powers,  so  have  the  others. 
If  the  one  is  forbidden,  so  must  the  others  be.  It  is  plain  that  this 
principle  of  divine  prescription  for  every  detail,  cannot  be,  and  is 
not  carried  out.  3.  Dr.  Boardman,  with  marked  ability  and  effect, 
referred  to  our  standards,  and  to  the  modest  and  moderate  language 
therein  employed,  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  this  extreme  high-Church 
doctrine.  Our  fathers  were  content  with  claiming  that  our  system  is 
"  agreeable  with  Scripture,"  and  never  assume  an  explicit  divine  pre- 
scription for  all  its  details. 


442  CHURCH  POLITY. 

4.  If  the  matter  is  viewed  in  the  light  of  expediency,  the  argument 
is  not  less  decisive  against  any  radical  change.  Such  change,  without 
any  imperative  necessity,  would  itself  be  a  great  evil.  It  would  be  an 
inconsistency.  After  having  for  years  contended  not  only  for  the  law- 
fulness, but  the  necessity  of  Boards,  for  us  now  to  cast  them  aside 
would  be  a  dishonour  to  those  who  have  gone  before  us,  and  utterly  in- 
consistent with  proper  respect  for  the  dignity  of  the  Church.  The 
Boards  have  been  signally  owned  and  blessed  by  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church,  and  made  the  means  of  incalculable  good.  The  objection 
that  certain  presbyteries  do  not  cooperate  with  our  present  organiza- 
tions, is  met  by  the  fact  that  those  who  dissent  on  the  ground  of  prin- 
ciple, are  a  very  small  minority,  such  as  must  be  expected  to  exist  in 
any  free  Church,  under  any  system  of  operation ;  and  as  to  efficiency, 
it  is  enough  that  the  presbyteries  which  cooperate  most  liberally  with 
the  Board  of  Missions  are  precisely  those  which  do  most  to  promote 
the  work  of  missions  within  their  own  borders.  To  throw  our  weak 
presbyteries,  covering  immense  districts  of  thinly  populated  parts  of 
the  country,  on  their  own  efforts,  and  to  confine  the  central  committee 
to  the  region  beyond  our  ecclesiastical  limits,  would  be  virtually  to 
give  up  the  work  altogether,  and  to  abandon  the  growing  parts  of  the 
country  to  irreligion  or  to  the  labours  of  other  denominations. 

The  objection  that  the  Boards  are  a  mere  incumbrance,  a  useless  inter- 
vention between  the  executive  committees  and  the  General  Assembly,  is 
met  by  saying  :  1.  That  these  Boards,  consisting  of  members  widely 
scattered,  serve  to  increase  interest  and  responsibility  in  the  work.  2. 
They  can  be  called  together  on  emergency  for  consultation  and  direc- 
tion when  the  Assembly  is  not  in  session.  They  can  meet  and  spend 
days  in  the  examination  of  records,  and  sifting  out  evils  or  eri'ors 
which  an  Assembly  of  three  hundred  members  could  not  possibly  do. 
Occasions  have  occurred,  and  must  be  expected  to  occur  more  or  less 
frequently,  when,  in  the  absence  of  such  Boards,  the  Assembly  would 
be  obliged  to  create  them  pro  re  nata.  The  large  size  of  these  bodies, 
instead  of  being  an  objection,  is  a  decided  and  great  advantage.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  all  the  members  should  attend  every  meeting.  It  is 
enough  that  they  can  be  called  together  on  emergencies.  It  is  very 
inexpedient  that  every  thing  should  be  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  in 
Philadelphia,  New  York,  or  Louisville.  If  unwise  measures  are 
adopted,  if  personal  likes  and  dislikes,  or  sectional  feeling,  should 
be  found  to  influence  the  action  of  the  members  living  in  or  near  the 
seat  of  operations,  a  general  summons  of  the  Board  can  correct  the 
evil.  This  has  happened  already.  It  is  illustrated  in  other  cases. 
Had  the  Bible  Society  been  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  in  New  York, 
the  society  would  have  been  ruined.     It  was  by  appealing  to  a  wider 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAKDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  443 

constituency  that  that  great  mstitution  was  saved.  The  same  is  true 
with  regard  to  the  Tract  Society,  and  may  prove  true  with  regard  to 
the  Sunday-school  Union.  It  is  not  safe  to  entrust  such  interests  to  a 
few  hands ;  and  although  we  have  a  safeguard  in  the  supervision  of 
the  Assembly,  yet,  as  that  body  meets  only  once  a  year,  first  in  one 
place,  and  then  in  another ;  as  it  is  cumbered  with  so  much  other 
business,  and  sits  for  so  short  a  time,  it  is  eminently  wise  not  to  have 
the  supervision  of  all  the  five  great  benevolent  operations  of  the 
Church  centralized  and  monopolized  by  that  body.  We  might  as 
well  abolish  all  the  Boards  of  Directors  of  our  Theological  Seminaries 
and  impose  the  work  of  supervision  and  direction  on  the  Assembly. 
It  is  enough  that  the  supreme  power  over  these  Boards  is  invested  in 
our  highest  court ;  the  power,  of  appointment,  supervision  and  control. 
The  stockholders  of  no  railroad  or  bank  in  the  country  undertake  the 
direct  supervision  of  the  executive  ofiicers  at  their  annual  meeting. 
They  all  find  it  necessary  to  confide  that  supervision  to  a  board  of 
directors.  And  when  such  institution  is  a  state  or  national  concern, 
those  directors  are  never  chosen  from  any  one  place  or  neighbourhood. 
These  are  the  common-sense  and  scriptural  principles  on  which  the 
Boards  have  been  constituted,  and  which  have  secured  for  them  the 
general  confidence  of  the  Church. 

The  overwhelming  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  declared  any  organic 
change  in  these  institutions  inexpedient,  and  the  withdrawing  of  Dr. 
Thornwell's  protest  against  that  vote,  on  the  adoption  of  the  slight  mo- 
difications suggested  by  Dr.  Krebs,  give  ground  to  hope  that  the  policy 
of  the  Church  in  this  matter  will  not  be  again  called  into  question. 

c.  Relations  of  Boards  to  Presbyteries.  [*] 

We  have  given  much  space  to  the  record  of  the  debate  respecting  the 
Board  of  Missions,  because  we  regard  the  principles  involved  of  general 
and  permanent  interest.  The  two  main  points  at  issue  were,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Board  to  the  presbyteries,  and  the  principle  that  the  Board 
is  a  missionary  and  not  a  sustentation  organization.  As  to  the  former 
of  these  questions,  it  seemed  to  be  contended  for,  on  the  one  side,  that 
the  Board  was  bound  to  obey  the  presbyteries  as  their  agent  in  the  ap- 
propriations of  the  funds  under  its  control ;  and  on  the  other,  that 
while  great  respect  is  due  to  the  wishes  and  resolutions  of  presbyteries, 
the  board  is  the  final  judge,  as  to  what  churches  shall  be  assisted,  what 
shall  be  the  amount  of  the  aid  furnished,  and  how  long  that  aid  shall 
be  continued.     Perhaps  the  truth,  as  commonly,  lies  in  the  middle. 

[*  From  article  on  ''  The  General  Assembly  ;"  topic,"'*  Board  of  Missions  ;"  Prince- 
ton Review,  1853 ;  p.  496.] 


444  CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  Board  cannot  be  under  a  hundred  masters,  each  having  the  right 
to  say  what  is  to  be  done  with  money  derived  from  the  whole  Church. 
The  Board  is  intrusted  with  a  certain  income,  to  be  appropriated  for 
the  support  and  spread  of  the  gospel.  They  must  of  necessity  have  a 
large  discretion  in  the  disposition  of  this  income.  They  must  distribute 
it,  not  agreeably  to  the  wishes  of  a  presbytery  limiting  its  views  to  its 
own  necessities,  but  agreeably  to  the  relative  necessities  of  the  whole 
Church.  This  is  plain,  and,  therefore,  whenever  a  presbytery  recom- 
mends a  particular  Church  to  the  Board  for  aid,  it  is  competent  for  the 
Board  to  decide  whether,  consistently  with  other  demands,  they  are 
able  to  furnish  the  required  assistance,  and  to  what  extent.  As  to  the 
question  of  their  ability  to  afford  aid  in  any  given  case,  the  Board  must 
be  the  judge.  But  as  to  the  question  whether  a  particular  Church  de- 
serves aid,  whether  it  ought  to  sustain  itself,  or  if  not  able  to  do  so,  be 
abandoned  to  its  fate,  the  case  is  very  different.  The  ability  to  decide, 
and  the  right  to  decide  these  questions,  as  it  seems  to  us,  are  Avith  the 
presbyteries.  It  is  evident  that  a  central  committee  of  a  half  dozen 
brethren  in  Philadelphia  cannot  know  the  circumstances  of  every  mis- 
sionary church  in  the  country,  and  be  able  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
question  what  each  can  do  in  the  matter  of  self-support,  and  whether 
the  post  is  worth  maintaining  or  not.  Besides  it  is  the  prerogative  of 
the  presbyteries  to  judge  of  all  questions  of  this  nature  respecting  the 
churches  within  their  own  bounds. 

For  the  Board  to  say  we  cannot  aid  a  Church,  because  we  have  not 
the  money,  is  one  thing.  But  to  say,  we  will  not  aid  it,  because  we 
think  it  ought  to  sustain  itself,  is  a  very  different  thing.  In  the  one 
case,  the  Board  keeps  its  place  as  the  agent  of  the  Church,  in  the  other, 
it  sets  itself  over  the  Church,  by  putting  up  its  judgment  against  the 
judgment  of  the  only  comjoetent  tribunal  for  the  decision  of  the  mat- 
ter. It  is  analogous  to  the  case  of  the  Board  of  Education.  That 
Board  is  not  bound  to  aid  every  young  man  recommended  by  the 
presbyteries.  On  the  questions  how  many  candidates  it  can  assist,  and 
to  what  extent  it  can  aid  them,  the  decision  is  with  the  Board.  But 
it  cannot  sit  in  judgment  on  the  decisions  of  the  presbytery  and  re- 
verse them,  and  say,  we  will  not  assist  a  candidate  whom  you  pro- 
nounce worthy,  because  we  think  him  unworthy.  This  would  be  to 
invest  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Education  with  pres- 
byterial  powers  over  the  whole  Church.  If  a  presbytery  pronounces  a 
man  worthy,  the  Board  of  Education  cannot  refuse  to  aid  him  on  the 
ground  of  his  unworthiness,  though  it  may  on  the  ground  of  the 
lack  of  funds.  In  like  manner,  the  Board  of  Missions  may  de- 
cline aid  to  a  congregation  recommended  by  a  presbytery,  on  the  ground 
of  the  want  of  funds,  but  not  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not  need  aid, 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOARDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  445 

or  ouglit  not  to  have  it.  This  principle  secures  the  Board  its  indepen- 
dence, and  full  discretionary  power  in  the  control  of  its  funds,  and  at  the 
same  time  it  secures  the  presbyteries  in  the  exercise  of  their  undoubted 
right. 

It  is  the  actual  or  apprehended  disregard  of  this  principle  on  the 
part  of  the  Board,  which  seems  to  have  excited  so  much  opposition 
in  various  parts  of  the  Church.  To  have  a  committee  in  Philadelphia 
sitting  in  judgment  on  the  question,  whether  a  Church  in  Indiana 
ought  to  be  assisted,  or  should  sustain  itself,  and  reversing  the  decision 
of  its  presbytery  as  to  that  point,  and  to  claim  and  exercise  the  same 
power  over  every  presbytery  in  our  connection,  may  well  excite  oppo- 
sition. How  long  would  the  Church  tolerate  the  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  rejudging  the  judgments  of  all  the  presbyteries 
as  to  the  qualification  of  candidates  for  the  ministry.  We  do  not  know 
that  the  Board  of  Missions  claim  the  power  to  which  we  object ;  but  if 
they  do,  as  the  Assembly  has  repeatedly  sustained  their  course,  the 
remedy  is  to  be  found  in  friendly  discussion,  until  the  views  of  the 
Church  are  settled,  and  then  they  will  not  fail  to  express  themselves 
through  the  Assembly. 

We  repeat  the  statement  of  what  appears  to  us  the  true  doctrine, 
that  it  may  be  distinctly  apprehended  by  our  readers.  The  Board 
of  Missions  has  the  right  to  the  distribution  of  its  funds  at  its  own 
discretion,  and  may,  therefore,  decline  to  aid  a  Church  recommen- 
ded by  a  presbytery,  on  the  ground  of  the  want  of  funds.  But  it 
has  no  right  to  set  its  judgment  over  that  of  the  presbyteries,  as  to 
whether  a  given  Church  ought  to  be  aided.  The  question  how  much 
money  can  be  granted  to  a  particular  field,  rests  with  the  Board , 
but  the  question,  what  Churches  within  its  own  bounds  shall  be 
aided,  rests  with  the  several  presbyteries.  And  we  think  the  prac- 
tical recognition  of  this  clear  distinction,  would  go  far  towards  pro- 
ducing harmony  and  cordial  co-operation,  instead  of  growing  discon- 
tent, such  as  was  manifested  in  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey  last  fall,  in 
several  of  the  Synods  of  the  West,  and  on  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

d.  Conditioning  Aid  on  Length  of  Study.  \^'\ 

\_Form  of  Gov.,  chap,  xiv.,  sec.  vi. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  399.] 

In  connection  with  this  subject  [Report  of  the  Board  of  Education,] 
should  be  mentioned  a  memorial  from  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  and 
another  from  the  Synod  of  West  Tennessee,  on  the  subject  of  the  rule 
of  the  Board,  requiring  every  beneficiary  to  pui*sue  a  course  of  three 

[*  From  article  on  '"The  General  Assembly;"  topic,  "Board  of  Education;" 
Princeton  Review,  1844,  p.  446.] 


446  CHURCH  POLITY. 

year's  study ;  and  a  communication  from  the  Board  itself  on  the  same 
subject.  Upon  these  papers  the  committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  re- 
commended the  adoption  of  a  resolution  to  the  following  effect :  "  That 
the  Board  be  required  to  permit  the  presbytery  under  whose  care  the 
candidate  may  study,  to  be  the  judge  of  the  length  of  time  which  shall 
be  occupied  in  his  theological  studies."* 

This  resolution  was  opposed  by  Dr.  Maclean,  Dr.  Junkin,  the 
moderator,  Mr.  Boardman,  Dr.  Elliot,  and  others.  Mr.  A.  O.  Patter- 
son, Mr.  Williamson,  Dr.  Plumer,  and  others,  supported  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  committee.  Dr.  Cuyler  proposed  a  substitute  to  the 
effect  that  the  General  Assembly,  being  deeply  impressed  with  a  sense 
of  the  importance  of  a  thorough  course  of  preparation  for  the  ministry, 
urge  upon  the  Presbyteries  to  endeavour  to  elevate  the  standard  of 
theological  attainments  by  the  students  under  their  care,  and  that  the 
pledge  exacted  by  the  Board  of  its  beneficiaries,  does  not  conflict  with 
the  constitution  of  the  Church. 

This  substitute  was  adopted.  We  are  not  aware  that  the  rule  of  the 
Board  requiring  their  beneficiaries  to  study  theology  three  years,  was 
objected  to  on  the  ground  that  a  shorter  course  of  study  was  sufl[icient 
or  desirable.  It  seemed  to  be  the  general  sense  of  the  house,  as  it  has 
been  the  uniform  sentiment  and  practice  of  the  Church  that  as 
thorough  a  theological  education  as  is  attainable  should  be  imparted 
to  all  candidates  for  the  ministry.  In  the  earlier  periods  of  our  history 
there  was  greater  temptation  than  at  present  to  lower  the  standard  of 
ministerial  education ;  but  all  attempts  to  effect  that  object  were  de- 
feated. And  to  the  honour  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  they  submitted  to  the  secession  of  the  body  now  called 
the  Cumberland  Presbyterians,  rather  than  yield  to  such  demands.  It 
is  to  this  steadiness  in  requiring  that  men  who  are  to  teach  others, 
should  themselves  be  adequately  taught,  that  the  prosperity  and  use- 
fulness of  our  Church  is  in  no  small  degree  to  be  ascribed.  There  is, 
however,  a  constant  tendency  both  on  the  part  of  young  men  and  pres- 
byteries to  shorten  the  term  of  study.  The  calls  for  labour  are  so 
urgent ;  the  difficulties  of  support  are  sometimes  so  numerous  ;  and  it 
must  be  confessed,  in  some  cases,  the  conviction  of  the  need  of  much 
study,  is  so  weak,  that  it  often  happens  that  young  men  hurry  or  are 
hurried  into  the  ministry  but  half  prepared  for  their  work.  This  is  a 
great  calamity  to  them  and  to  the  Church.  It  is  purchasing  a  tem- 
porary good,  at  the  expense  of  a  permanent  evil.  No  man  who  has 
any  just  appreciation  of  the  work  of  the  ministry,  would  dare  to  as- 
sume its  responsibilities,  after  a  hurried  course  of  two  years'  study. 

*  Protestant  and  Herald,  May  23,  1844. 


THE  ASSEMBLY'S  BOAEDS  AND  COMMITTEES.  447 

He  would  feel  that  the  danger  he  ran  of  perverting  the  truth  through 
ignorance,  or  of  failing  to  defend  it  when  attacked,  was  too  serious  an 
evil  to  be  lightly  incurred.  All  experience  teaches  us  that  ignorance, 
next  to  sin,  is  the  most  fruitful  source  of  error,  and  that  a  few  able, 
well  furnished  and  faithful  ministers,  are  far  more  efficient  for  good, 
than  a  multitude  of  uneducated  though  zealous  men. 

The  objection  to  the  rule  adopted  by  the  Board  which  seemed  to 
influence  the  members  who  took  part  in  the  debate,  was  that  it  con- 
flicted with  the  rights  of  presbyteries.  The  constitution  permits  a 
presbytery  to  ordain  a  candidate  after  two  years  of  theological  study. 
The  Board  require  the  beneficiaries  to  study  three  years.  This,  it  was 
urged,  they  had  no  right  to  do.  It  was  not  contended  that  the  Assem- 
bly itself,  much  less  the  Board,  has  authority  to  limit  the  discretion  of 
the  presbyteries  in  this  matter.  If  a  presbytery  choose  to  license  or 
ordain  a  candidate,  when  he  has  studied  two  years,  they  can  do  so 
without  censure.  The  rule  of  the  Board  does  not  apply  to  the  presby- 
teries, however,  but  to  the  young  men.  The  Board  do  not  say  to  the 
former  you  must  allow  your  beneficiaries  to  study  three  years  ;  but  it 
says  to  its  own  beneficiaries  you  must  agree  to  study  at  least  that  length 
of  time.  Any  individual  has  a  right  to  say  to  a  young  man :  I  will 
aid  you  during  your  theological  course,  provided  you  consent  to  study 
three  years  ;  and  the  Board,  which  represents  a  number  of  individuals, 
who  act  and  speak  through  the  General  Assembly,  have  surely  the 
right  to  say  the  same  thing.  -It  is  only  a  condition  which  the  donors 
attach  to  their  contributions.  If  they  are  dissatisfied  they  can  through 
the  Assembly  rescind  the  restriction,  or  if  in  the  minority,  withhold  their 
contributions.  There  is  neither  assumption  nor  injustice  in  this.  It  can 
not  be  doubted  that  the  great  majority  of  the  contributors  to  the  Board 
of  Education  are  in  favour  of  requiring  a  three  years'  course  of  study, 
and  for  a  minority  to  say  they  shall  not  give  at  all  unless  they  give  in  a 
way  which  they  think  injurious  to  the  Church,  is  surely  unreasonable. 
The  presbyteries  are  left  at  perfect  liberty ;  they  may  license  whom  they 
please  and  when  they  please,  within  the  limits  of  the  constitution,  but 
the  Board  as  the  organ  of  the  donors  and  under  the  direction  of  the 
Assembly,  may  make  a  contract  with  the  young  men  not  to  apply  for 
licensure  until  they  have  completed  their  course  of  studies.  A  very 
important  object  is  thus  gained,  without  trenching  on  the  rights  of 
others. 


448  CHURCH  POLITY. 

§  7.    Parochial  Schools. [*] 

[Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  278.] 

A  committee,  of  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  W.  Alexander  was  chair- 
man, appointed  by  the  last  Assembly,  made  an  important  report  on 
the  subject  of  Parochial  Schools,  which  was  read  and  ordered  to  be 
printed  for  the  use  of  the  members.  The  report  closed  with  the  follow- 
ing resolutions,  viz : 

'^Resolved,  1st.  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  General  Assembly,  any  scheme  of 
education  is  incomplete  which  does  not  include  instruction  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
in  those  doctrines  of  grace  which  are  employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  renewal 
and  sanctification  of  the  soul. 

''  JResolved,  2d.  That  in  consideration  of  the  blessings  derived  to  us,  through  our 
forefathers,  from  the  method  of  mingling  the  doctrines  of  our  Church  with  the  dai- 
ly teachings  of  the  school,  the  Assembly  earnestly  desire  as  near  an  approach  to 
this  method  as  may  comport  with  the  circumstances  of  this  country. 

^^ Resolved,  3d.  That  the  Assembly  regards  with  great  approval,  the  attempt  of 
such  churches  as  have  undertaken  schools  under  their  proper  direction;  as  well 
as  the  zeal  which  has  led  individual  friends  of  the  truth  to  aid  the  same  cause. 

"Resolved,  4th.  That  the  Assembly  recommends  the  whole  subject  of  Parochial 
Education  to  the  serious  attention  of  the  Church — counseling  all  concerned  to  re- 
gard the  maintenance  of  gospel  faith  and  order,  in  the  founding  of  new  schools, 
the  appointment  of  teachers,  and  the  selection  of  places  of  education." 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Young  the  following  additional  resolution  was  adopted. 

"Resolved,  That  the  whole  subject  of  the  report  be  referred  to  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation ;  that  they  may,  from  time  to  time,  report  to  the  General  Assembly  any 
further  action  that  may  be  needed  for  extending  through  our  churches  a  system 
of  Parochial  Schools." 

The  whole  report  was  finally  adopted,  and  ordered  to  be  printed  in 
the  appendix  to  the  Minutes. 

The  only  point  which  gave  rise  to  any  debate,  was  that  contained  in 
the  second  resolution,  which  affirms  that  the  "doctrines  of  our  Church" 
ought  to  be  mingled  "with  the  daily  teachings  of  the  school,"  necessa- 
rily implying  that  there  ought  to  be  schools  under  the  control  of  the 
Church.  This  brought  up  the  great  question,  whether  Presbyterians 
ought  to  join  with  other  denominations  and  sustain  the  common  schools 
of  the  state,  or  whether  they  should,  as  far  as  possible,  establish  paro- 
chial schools  under  their  own  exclusive  control.  When  the  matter 
first  came  up,  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckenridge  made  a  short  and  eflTective 
speech  against  the  principle  of  parochial  schools ;  and  Dr.  Tallmadge 
spoke,  in  reply,  in  favor  of  the  report.  The  subject  was  then  post- 
poned, and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  the  afternoon  of  the  follow- 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly  ;  "  same  topic ;  Princeton  Review, 
1846,  p.  433.] 


PAEOCHIAL  SCHOOLS.  449 

ing  Thursday.  "When  that  time  arrived,  after  a  short  debate,  the  dis- 
cussion was  again  postponed,  and  finally  the  report  was  acted  upon 
without  having  been  debated  to  any  extent  according  to  its  importance. 

The  principal  objections  urged  against  the  report  were,  first, 
that  the  whole  spirit  of  the  age  and  of  our  country  is  in  favour  of 
popular  education,  that  spirit  we  cannot  efiectually  resist,  it  must 
have  its  course,  and  therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  every  evangelical  de- 
nomination to  throw  its  influence  into  the  movement,  and  give  the 
common  schools  of  the  country  as  Christian  a  character  as  possible. 
Secondly,  that  since  Presbyterians,  in  consequence  of  their  general 
intelligence,  have  an  influence  disproportioned  to  their  relative  num- 
ber, they  are,  of  all  denominations,  the  last  which  should  withdraw 
from  this  general  partnership ;  they  are  sure  to  derive  more  benefit 
from  it,  and  to  have  more  power  in  controlling  it,  than  would  be 
due  to  them  on  account  of  their  numbers.  Thirdly,  that  it  must  be 
disastrous  for  any  body  of  Christians  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
community,  sitting  apart  as  on  an  isolated  tripod,  out  of  communion 
with  their  fellow-citizens.  If  they  would  prosper,  they  must  enter 
heart  and  hand  in  the  common  enterprises  of  the  country,  in  which 
they  hav.e  an  interest,  and  not  attempt  to  set  up  for  themselves. 
Fourthly,  that  the  diversity  of  sects  to  be  found  in  all  our  towns 
and  villages,  renders  it  impossible  that  each  Church  should  have  its 
own  schools.  Fifthly,  that  the  plan  proposed  would  involve  a  vast 
expenditure  of  men  and  money ;  millions  would  be  required  to  erect 
and  sustain  a  school  in  connection  with  every  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tion in  our  land. 

These  arguments  have  certainly  great  weight,  but  they  do  not  seem 
exactly  to  meet  the  case,  nor  to  counterbalance  the  considerations  on  \ 
the  other  side.  Dr.  Lindsley,  Dr.  Reed,  Mr.  Mebane  and  Dr.  Young 
sustained  the  report,  the  latter  speaking  at  some  length  and  with  great 
strength  of  argument  in  its  support.  It  is  a  conceded  point  that  chil- 
dren ought  to  be  religiously  educated ;  that  not  merely  natural  religion, 
but  Christianity,  and  not  merely  Christianity  in  general,  but  in  the 
definite  form  in  which  we  believe  it  has  been  revealed  by  God  for  the 
salvation  of  men,  ought  to  be  inculcated  on  the  infant  mind,  so  that  the 
rising  generation  shall  be  imbued  with  the  knowledge  of  divine  truth. 
Secondly,  it  may  be  assumed  as  conceded  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Church  to  impart  this  religious  education.  This  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant parts  of  her  vocation.  She  received  her  commission  to  teach ; 
she  is  by  the  will  and  authority  of  her  author  an  institute  of  education, 
established  to  communicate  and  preserve  the  knowledge  of  God,  of 
Christ,  of  the  way  of  salvation  and  of  the  rule  of  duty.  Thirdly,  this 
is  a  duty  which  the  Church  cannot  devolve  on  others;  she  cannot  throw 
29 


450  CHUECH  POLITY. 

the  responsibility  on  the  state,  for  it  is  the  very  work  God  has  given 
her  to  do,  and  she  might  as  well  look  to  the  state  to  preach  the  gospel, 
as  to  make  disciples  of  the  nations  by  teaching  them.  Fourthly,  the 
only  question  then  is  how  the  Church  is  to  acquit  herself  of  this  obliga- 
tion ;  how  is  she  to  fulfil  her  vocation  as  teacher  as  far  as  the  young 
are  concerned  ?  Can  she  safely  rely  upon  family  instruction,  on  Sunday- 
schools,  on  the  religious  teaching  of  pastors,  separately  or  combined  ? 
It  is  acknowledged  that  all  these  modes  of  religious  education  are 
legitimate  and  important,  and  ought  to  be  assiduously  used,  but  they 
are  all  inadequate.  With  regard  to  family  instruction,  it  is  obvious  that 
many  parents  have  no  disposition  to  teach  their  children  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel ;  others  who  may  have  the  disposition,  have  not  adequate 
knowledge  or  skill ;  so  that  if  the  Church  were  to  rely  on  this  method, 
a  very  large  part  of  the  young  for  whom  she  is  responsible,  would  grow 
up  in  ignorance.  As  to  Sunday-schools,  they  are  inadequate  for  two 
reasons,  first,  because  in  most  cases  they  embrace  children  of  various 
religious  denominations,  the  instruction  given  is  consequently  often  too 
general ;  and  secondly,  because  only  an  hour  a  week  is  devoted  to  the 
subject,  a  portion  of  time  altogether  insufficient  to  attain  so  great  an 
end  as  teaching  Christianity  to  the  rising  generation.  As  to  pastoral 
instruction,  this  is  or  ought  to  be  the  main  reliance  of  the  Church,  and 
is  an  agency  of  divine  appointment  which  no  other  should  be  allowed 
to  supersede  and  weaken.  Much  in  many  parts  of  the  Church  is  efiected 
by  this  means,  and  more  ought  doubtless  to  be  accomplished.  The 
pastor  by  catechetical  instruction,  by  teaching  the  Bible,  and  by  other 
means,  has  it  in  his  power  to  do  a  great  deal  towards  attaining  the 
great  end  in  view.  The  pastor  is  the  teacher,  the  dtdaaxaXoq  of  his 
whole  people.  But  at  best  this  brings  under  instruction  only  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Church-going  part  of  the  population,  leaving  a  large  portion 
of  the  whole  number  unprovided  for.  Then  again  it  is  rare  that  the 
pastor  can,  or  at  least  does,  bring  even  all  the  children  of  his  own 
people  under  this  course  of  training.  Either  their  number,  or  the 
wide  extent  of  country  over  which  they  are  scattered,  or  the  pressure 
of  other  duties,  or  the  remissness  of  parents,  or  other  reasons,  prevent 
this  agency  from  fully  accomplishing  the  desired  end.  It  is  an  obvious 
fact  that  if  the  children  of  the  country  had  no  other  religious  instruc- 
tion than  that  derived  from  the  pastor,  they  would  to  a  vast  extent 
grow  up  unenlightened  by  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  Our  condition 
is  greatly  modified  by  the  peculiarity  of  our  political  institutions.  In 
Prussia  and  other  countries  of  the  old  world,  the  law  intervenes  and 
requires  the  attendance  of  the  children  on  the  instruction  of  the  pastor 
and  makes  it  obligatory  on  the  pastor  at  stated  times  to  give  thai 
instruction.  Every  pastor  has  always  under  instruction  all  the  children 


PAROCHIAL  SCHOOLS.  451 

of  his  district,  between  the  ages  of  thirteen  and  fourteen  for  boys,  and 
eleven  and  twelve  for  girls.  He  is  required  by  law  to  meet  them  once 
a  week  and  take  them  through  a  prescribed  course,  and  they  are  re- 
quired to  attend  his  instructions,  and  at  the  end  of  the  year  they  are 
publicly  examined.  A  certificate  of  having  satisfactorily  sustained 
that  examination,  is  demanded  of  every  young  person  before  he  can 
marry  or  in  any  way  settle  in  life.  Any  thiug  of  this  kind  among  us, 
is  of  course  out  of  the  question.  Unless  therefore  the  Church  can 
employ  some  other  agency  than  those  already  mentioned,  she  will  not 
accomplish  her  vocation  as  the  teacher  of  the  people.  That  other 
agency  is  the  common  school.  In  all  ages  of  the  Church  and  in 
every  part  of  Christendom  it  has  been  considered  a  first  principle  that 
religious  teaching  should  be  incorporated  with  the  common  school  sys- 
tem. This  is  not  peculiar  to  Protestantism.  In  Popish  countries  it 
ever  has  been,  and  still  is  the  great  aim  of  the  priesthood  to  get  the 
children  imbued,  while  pursuing  their  secular  education,  with  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Church.  In  this  they  are  right.  Their  error  lies  not  in 
thus  incorporating  religion  with  early  education,  but  in  teaching  a  false 
system  of  religion. 

Until  the  difficulty  arising  from  diversity  of  sects  began  to  be  felt, 
it  was  the  universal  rule  that  the  Church  system,  the  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  as  held  by  the  Church,  should  be  sedulously  taught  in  the 
schools.  To  meet  the  difficulty  just  suggested,  the  first  plan  proposed 
was  to  fix  upon  some  common  standard  of  doctrine  in  which  the  several 
sects  could  concur,  and  confine  the  religious  teaching  within  those  limits, 
leaving  denominational  peculiarities  to  be  otherwise  provided  for.  On 
this  plan  in  Great  Britain  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  unite  not  only 
evangelical  Protestants,  but  even  Protestants  and  Romanists  in  the  same 
schools.  This  plan  has  satisfied  no  party,  and  though  still  persisted  in, 
has  proved  in  a  great  measure  a  failure.  It  is  peculiarly  inappropri- 
ate for  this  country.  Because  as  we  are  obliged  to  act  on  the  princi- 
ple of  excluding  no  class  of  the  people  from  the  common  school,  this 
common  standard  of  doctrine,  is  of  necessity  that  with  which  the  very 
lowest  and  loosest  of  the  sects  of  the  country  will  be  satisfied.  It 
is  not  only  the  Episcopalian,  Romanist,  Presbyterian,  Methodist  or 
Baptist,  that  must  be  satisfied,  but  Socinians,  Universalists,  and  even 
Infidels.  An  Immediate  outcry  is  made  about  religious  liberty,  and 
the  union  of  Church  and  State,  if  in  a  public  school  any  religious  in- 
struction is  given  to  which  any  of  these  parties  object. 

This  has  led  to  the  plan  of  confining  the  instruction  of  the  schools  to 
secular  branches  exclusively,  and  leaving  the  parent  or  pastor  to  look 
after  the  religious  education  of  the  children.  This  is  becoming  the 
popular  theory  in  this  country.     It  is  already  difficult,  in  many  places. 


452  CHUECH  POLITY. 

to  retain  even  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  public  schools.  The 
"whole  system  is  in  the  hands  of  men  of  the  world,  in  many  of  our  states, 
and  is  avowedly  secular.  Now  with  regard  to  this  scheme  it  may  be 
remarked  that  it  is  a  novel  and  fearful  experiment.  The  idea  of  giv- 
ing an  education  to  the  children  of  a  country  from  which  religion  is  to 
be  excluded,  we  believe  to  be  peculiar  to  the  nineteenth  century. 
Again,  it  is  obvious  that  education  without  religion,  is  irreligious.  It 
cannot  be  neutral,  and  in  fact  is  not  neutral.  The  effort  to  keep  out 
religion  from  all  the  books  and  all  the  instructions,  gives  them  of 
necessity  an  irreligious  and  infidel  character.  Again,  the  common 
school  is  the  only  place  of  education  for  a  large  class  of  our  people. 
They  have  neither  parental  nor  pastoral  instruction  to  supply  its  de- 
ficiency or  correct  its  influence.  Again,  this  plan  is  so  repugnant  to 
the  convictions  of  the  better  part  of  the  community  that  its  introduc- 
tion into  our  colleges  has  been  strenuously  resisted.  Where  is  the 
Christian  parent  who  would  send  his  son  to  a  college  from  which  re- 
ligion was  banished,  in  which  there  were  no  prayers,  no  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  no  biblical  instruction  ?  But  if  we  shrink  from  such  an 
ungodly  mode  of  education  for  the  few  who  enjoy  the  advantages  of  a 
classical  education,  why  should  we  consent  to  the  great  mass  of  the 
children  of  the  country,  being  subjected  to  this  system  in  the  common 
schools  ?  Under  the  plea  and  guise  of  liberty  and  equality,  this  system 
is  in  fact  in  the  highest  degree  tyrannical.  "What  right  has  the  state, 
a  majority  of  the  people,  or  a  mere  clique,  which  in  fact  commonly 
control  such  matters,  to  say  what  shall  be  taught  in  schools  which  the 
people  sustain  ?  What  more  right  have  they  to  say  that  no  religion 
shall  be  taught,  than  they  have  to  say  that  popery  shall  be  taught  ? 
Or  what  right  have  the  people  in  one  part,  to  control  the  wishes  and 
convictions  of  those  of  another  part  of  a  state  as  to  the  education  of 
their  own  children  ?  If  the  people  of  a  particular  district  choose  to 
have  a  school  in  which  the  Westminster  or  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
is  taught,  we  cannot  see  on  what  principle  of  religious  liberty,  the  state 
has  a  right  to  interfere  and  say  it  shall  not  be  done ;  if  you  teach  your 
religion  you  shall  not  draw  your  own  money  from  the  public  fund. 
This  appears  to  us  a  strange  doctrine  in  a  free  country ;  and  yet  it  is, 
if  we  mistake  not,  the  practical  working  of  the  popular  systems  in 
every  part  of  the  Union.  We  are  not  disposed  to  submit  to  any  such 
dictation.  We  cannot  see  with  any  patience  the  whole  school  system 
of  a  state,  with  all  its  mighty  influence,  wielded  by  a  secretary  of  state, 
or  school  commissioner,  or  by  a  clique  of  Unitarian  or  infidel  statesmen, 
as  the  case  may  be.  We  regard  this  whole  theory  of  a  mere  secular 
education  in  the  common  schools,  enforced  by  the  penalty  of  exclusion 
from  the  public  funds  and  state  patronage,  as  unjust  and  tyrannical  as 


PAROCHIAL  SCHOOLS.  453 

well  as  infidel  in  its  whole  tendency.  The  people  of  each  district  have 
the  right  to  make  their  schools  as  religious  as  they  please ;  and  if  they 
cannot  agree,  they  have  the  right  severally  of  drawing  their  proper 
proportion  of  the  public  stock. 

The  conviction,  we  are  persuaded,  is  fast  taking  possession  of  the 
minds  of  good  people  that  the  common  school  system  is  rapidly  assum- 
ing not  a  mere  negative,  but  a  positively  anti-christian  character;  and 
that  in  self-defence,  and  in  the  discharge  of  their  highest  duty  to  God 
and  their  country,  they  must  set  themselves  against  it,  and  adopt  the 
system  of  parochial  schools ;  schools  in  which  each  Church  shall  teach 
fully,  fairly  and  earnestly  what  it  believes  to  be  the  truth  of  God. 
This  is  the  only  method  in  which  a  religious  education  has  hitherto 
ever  been  given  to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  any  country,  and  the  no- 
vel experiment  of  this  age  and  country,  is  really  an  experiment  to  see 
what  will  be  the  result  of  bringing  up  the  body  of  the  people  in  igno- 
rance of  God  and  his  word.  For  if  religion  is  banished  from  the  com- 
mon school  it  vdW  be  excluded  from  the  whole  educational  training  of 
a  large  part  of  the  population.  It  is  an  attempt  to  apply  to  the  whole 
country,  what  Girard  has  prescribed  for  his  college.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  Church  of  every  denomination  is  called  upon  to  do  its 
duty,  which  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  to  teach  the  people  Christiani- 
ty, and  if  this  cannot  otherwise  be  done  thoroughly  and  effectually,  as 
we  are  persuaded  it  cannot,  than  by  having  a  school  in  connection  with 
every  congregation,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  enter  upon 
that  plan  and  to  prosecute  it  with  all  her  energy.  It  is  often  said  that 
we  cannot  argue  from  the  case  of  European  countries  to  our  own. 
But  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  has  taught  us  that  it  is  not  only  in 
established  churches  that  the  system  of  parochial  schools  is  feasible. 
The  devoted  men  who  are  laying  the  foundation  of  the  new  system  in 
Scotland,  never  imagined  that  their  duty  would  be  done  if  they  plant- 
ed a  pastor  and  a  church  in  every  parish.  They  at  once,  and  with 
equal  strength  of  conviction  and  purpose,  set  about  establishing  a 
school  in  connection  with  every  church.  It  is  as  much  a  part  of  their 
system  as  having  ministers  or  elders.  And  it  should  be  ours  also.  A 
school  of  this  kind,  established  and  controlled  by  the  session  of  the 
Church,  becomes  a  nursery  for  the  Church,  the  ministry  and  the  whole 
land.  Its  blessings  are  not  confined  to  any  one  denomination.  The 
people  are  so  anxious  to  get  a  good  education  for  their  children,  that 
they  will  not  hesitate  to  send  them  to  a  Presbyterian  school,  if  that  is 
the  cheapest  and  best.  Do  we  not  see  Romish  schools  crowded  with 
Protestant  children,  attracted  by  the  reputation  of  the  teacher  or  the 
facility  of  acquiring  some  trifling  accomplishment?  If  we  do  not 
adopt  this  course,  others  will.    If  Presbyterians  do  not  have  schools 


454  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

of  their  own,  other  denominations  will  soon  have  the  education  of  Pres- 
byterian children.  Romanists  are  every  where  setting  up  for  them- 
selves ;  and  as  the  principle  on  which  they  act  commends  itself  to  the 
judgment  and  conscience  of  good  people,  other  denominations  will 
soon  follow  their  example. 

The  objection  on  the  score  of  expense  does  not  seem  very  formidable. 
The  portion  of  money  for  each  school  which  comes  from  the  public 
treasury  is,  in  most  of  our  states,  very  small.  And  if  the  several  de- 
nominations adopt  the  plan  of  parochial  schools,  the  state  will  soon  be 
forced  to  the  obviously  just  method  of  a  proportionate  distribution  of 
the  public  funds,  whether  derived  from  taxation  or  lands  or  a  capital 
stock.  A  beginning  has  been  made  on  this  plan  in  New  York  in  favour 
of  the  Romanists,  and  what  has  been  granted  to  them  cannot  long  be 
withheld  from  others.  But  even  if  we  are  to  be  permanently  cut  off 
from  all  support  from  the  state,  still  the  expense  can  be  borne.  Any 
good  parochial  school  would  soon  sustain  itself,  and  be  able  to  afford 
gratuitous  instruction  to  those  who  need  it.  Nor  can  we  see  that  we 
should  thus  isolate  ourselves.  We  have  too  many  points  of  contact  with 
the  community  of  which  we  form  a  part,  to  admit  of  any  such  isolation. 
Action  and  reaction  to  any  degree  that  is  healthful  to  us  or  useful  to 
others  cannot  fail  to  be  kept  up.  Our  having  separate  churches,  pastors 
and  church  courts,  do  not  make  us  a  separate  people  in  the  country, 
and  we  see  not  why  having  separate  schools  should  produce  that  effect. 
The  greatest  practical  objection  to  the  plan  proposed  would  seem  to  be 
the  minute  division  of  the  population  into  sects.  In  reference  to  this 
difficulty  we  would  only  remark,  that  a  population  that  can  sustain  a 
church  is  large  enough  to  have  a  school ;  and  secondly,  if  the  school  be 
good,  its  support  will  not  be  confined  to  Presbyterians.  Methodists 
and  Baptists  will  not  refuse  to  educate  their  children  at  all  rather  than 
send  to  a  school  under  the  charge  of  Presbyterians.  All  experience 
shows  this  to  be  true.  We  sincerely  hope,  therefore,  that  the  plan  pro- 
posed by  the  report  and  sanctioned  by  the  Assembly,  may  be  adopted 
and  strenuously  prosecuted  by  the  churches.  Let  the  session  of  the 
church  look  out  for  a  competent  teacher ;  let  them  prescribe  the  course 
of  instruction,  making  the  Bible  and  the  Catechism  a  regular  part  of 
every  day's  studies,  and  we  doubt  not  the  plan  will  meet  the  concur- 
rence of  the  people  and  the  blessing  of  God. 

^  8.   Correspondence  with  otiier  Charches.  P] 

[Form  of  Oov.,  chap,  xii.,  sec.  v. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  268.] 
A  communication  from  the  General  Conference  of  Maine,  proposing 

[*From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;"  Princeton  Beview,  1840,  p.  413]. 


CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  OTHER  CHURCHES.  455 

a  correspondence  witli  the  General  Assembly  was  received,  and  referred 
to  a  special  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  M'Pheeters,  Doolittle,  and 
Sterrit.  This  committee  subsequently  made  the  following  report,  which 
was  adopted,  viz. : 

''Although  the  subject  referred  to  the  committee  has  respect  only  to  one  eccle- 
siastical body,  yet  your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the  action  of  the  Assembly 
in  the  premises,  whatever  that  action  may  be,  will  naturally  involve  principles 
bearing  on  any  similar  case. 

"While,  therefore,  your  committee  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  ecclesiastical 
body  in  the  land  with  which  the  Assembly  could  more  profitably  and  cordially 
correspond  and  fraternize  than  with  the  General  Conference  of  Maine,  yet  as  the 
whole  question  which  relates  to  correspondence  with  other  churches  at  home  and 
abroad,  is  one,  in  some  of  its  aspects  at  least,  of  much  interest,  and  concerning 
which,  there  exists  considerable  diversity  of  oijinion,  your  committee  respectfully 
recommend  that  the  communication  from  the  General  Conference  of  Maine  be  laid 
on  the  table,  subject  to  the  call  of  any  member  of  the  house,  and  with  the  under- 
standing that  when  called  up,  the  whole  subject  of  ecclesiastical  correspondence 
shall,  on  motion,  be  open  for  discussion,  and  for  the  action  of  the  Assembly." 

The  subject  was  afterwards  called  up,  and  it  was  Resolved,  That  the 
invitation  from  the  General  Conference  of  Maine,  proposing  the  renewal 
of  correspondence,  be  accepted.  The  Rev.  Reuben  Smith  was  elected 
the  delegate  to  that  Conference.  Dr.  Spring  was  appointed  as  his 
alternate. 

We  greatly  rejoice  in  this  decision.  Our  Church  has  suffered  so 
much  from  allowing  the  bridge  of  her  discipline  to  be  broken  down, 
and  permitting  those  who  did  not  even  profess  to  adopt  our  standards 
of  doctrine  and  order  to  enter  our  communion,  not  merely  as  corres- 
pondents, but  as  full  and  governing  members  of  the  Church,  that  we 
do  not  wonder  at  some  manifestation  of  a  disposition  to  go  to  the  op- 
posite extreme.  As  we  have  suffered  from  too  intimate  union,  some  are 
prepared  for  absolute  non-intercourse.  It  seems,  however,  very  plain 
that  no  intercourse  with  our  fellow  Christians  ought  to  be  repudiated, 
which  does  not  endanger  the  doctrines  or  discipline  which  we  are 
pledged  to  support.  And  it  appears  no  less  plain  that  our  doctrine  and 
discipline  are  secure,  as  far  as  this  matter  is  concerned,  so  long  as  we 
do  not  admit  to  a  participation  in  the  government  of  the  Church  those 
who  do  not  adopt  our  standards  and  submit  to  the  government  which  they 
help  to  administer.  The  friendly  intercourse  kept  up  by  an  interchange 
of  delegates  between  independent  evangelical  bodies,  is  a  testimony  be- 
fore the  world  of  union  in  all  the  esssential  principles  of  the  gospel.  It 
is  a  public  recognition  of  a  brotherhood,  which  no  one  hesitates  to  ac- 
knowledge in  private.  It  is  an  answer  to  the  cavils  of  papists  and  infi- 
dels arising  from  the  dissensions  or  sects  of  Protestants ;  and  it  tends  to 
promote  the  feeling  of  which  it  is  the  expression.    In  other  words,  it 


456  CHUECH  POLITY. 

tends  to  promote  true  religion,  and  the  glory  of  God.  It  moreover 
serves  to  remove  prejudices  and  to  diifuse  correct  information  between 
the  different  portions  of  the  great  family  of  evangelical  Christians.  We, 
therefore,  greatly  rejoice  that  the  General  Assembly  seems  disposed  to 
accept  the  hand  of  every  follower  of  Christ,  proffered  to  it  as  the 
expression  of  confidence  and  brotherly  regard. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

DISCIPLINE. 
g  1.  Revision  of  the  Book. 

a.    Need  of  Revision.  [*] 

■    \Booh  of  Discipline,  chap,  vii.,  sec.  iii.,  especially  par's,  viii.  and  xvii. — Comp. 
Digest  of  1873,  pp.  564,  592,  &c.] 

Some  eight  or  ten  cases  of  this  kind  were  presented  to  the  Judicial 
Committee,  but  by  the  skill  and  wisdom  of  that  body  matters  were  so 
managed  that  all  but  three  were  arranged  without  being  brought  be- 
fore the  house.  No.  1  was  the  complaint  of  the  Church  of  Stillwater 
against  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey. 

The  session  of  the  Stillwater  Church  suspended  one  of  their  ruling 
elders.  The  ruling  elder  appealed  to  the  presbytery,  and  the  presby- 
tery directed  the  session  to  restore  him  to  office  ;  the  session  then  com- 
plained to  synod,  and  the  synod  sustained  the  presbytery.  It  was 
against  the  action  of  the  synod  the  session  now  complains. 

After  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  extending  over  parts  of  six  days, 
Dr.  Thornwell  said  he  thought  the  whole  question  was  one  of  techni- 
calities, and  moved  that  the  complaint  be  sustained  pro  forma,  and  the 
session  be  directed  to  give  Mr.  Shafer  (the  suspended  elder)  a  new 
trial.     This  motion  was  carried  almost  unanimously. 

This  is  another  lesson  teaching  what  the  Church  seems  slow  to  learn ; 
that  a  body  consisting  of  upwards  of  two  hundred  members  is  not  a 
very  suitable  court  of  appeal.  Lawyers  tell  us  that  the  apparently 
anomalous  plan  of  making  the  upper  house  of  the  Legislature  the  ulti- 
mate court  of  appeal  in  civil  matters  answered  very  well,  because  the 
house  uniformly  deferred  to  the  judicial  members,  except  in  cases  where 

[*  From  article  on  The  General  Assembly,  topic  Judicial  Cases;  Princeton  Meview, 
1856,  p.  582.] 


EEVISION  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DISCIPLINE.  457 

those  members  differed  among  themselves,  and  then  the  instinct  of  the 
lay  members  generally  inclined  them  to  take  part  with  the  right  side. 
Such  is  not  the  constitution  of  our  Assembly.  It  would  be  more  of  a 
parallel  case  if  the  appeal  in  civil  matters  were  from  the  bench  to  the 
whole  bar  of  a  state  assembled  as  a  court,  or  if  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  were  the  supreme  court  of  the  Union. 
"We  believe  the  necessity  for  the  appointment  of  a  commission  is  forcing 
itself  more  and  more  on  the  conviction  of  the  leading  minds  of  our 
Church. 

Another  infelicity  in  our  mode  of  conducting  judicial  cases  was  made 
very  manifest  on  this  occasion.  This  case  was  introduced  on  the  fourth 
day  of  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly  and  decided  on  the  tenth.  "When 
the  case  had  been  partly  heard,  other  matters  were  taken  up,  and  the 
whole  subject  driven  from  the  minds  of  the  members,  and  then  it  was 
resumed.  This  was  done  over  and  over  again.  It  is  obvious  the  case 
would  have  occupied  much  less  time  and  been  much  better  understood, 
could  it  have  been  heard  continuously. 

There  is  another  point  worthy  of  remark.  It  is  impossible  for  any 
reader  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  or  of  the  debates,  to  have  the 
least  idea  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  The  complaint  is  not  given, 
neither  the  action  of  the  presbytery  nor  of  the  synod  is  so  stated  that 
the  reader  can  understand  either  the  grounds  or  the  justice  of  their 
decision.  The  only  insight  he  can  get  is  from  the  conflicting  state- 
ments of  the  debaters. 

We  will  venture  still  further  to  urge  the  necessity  of  the  revision  of 
our  Book  of  Discipline.  It  is  unintelligible,  inconsistent,  and  in  some 
of  its  parts  unreasonable.  This  is  proved  beyond  dispute  from  the  fact 
that  so  much  diversity  of  opinion  exists  as  to  its  interpretation.  "We 
never  knew  of  a  judicial  case  brought  before  the  Assembly  where  the 
mode  of  procedure  did  not  create  debate  and  confusion.  "Who  are  the 
original  parties?  is  the  question  almost  certain  to  be  started,  and  just  as 
certain  to  receive  conflicting  answers.  In  the  present  case,  the  mod- 
erator decided  the  session  and  the  synod  were  the  original  parties. 

But  what  can  the  word  original  then  mean  ?  The  original  parties 
must  mean  the  parties  concerned  in  the  origin  of  the  dispute ;  which 
in  this  case,  were  the  elder  and  the  session — another  difficulty 
is,  that  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  there  are  no  parties,  in  the 
sense  of  plaintiff  and  defendant.  It  seems  unreasonable  and  anoma- 
lous to  make  the  lower  court  a  party.  In  civil  matters,  a  lower  tribu- 
nal does  not  appear  at  the  bar  of  a  higher,  as  a  party  to  be  tried.  Its 
decision  is  reviewed — ^but  the  original  litigants  are  the  only  parties,  no 
matter  how  many  steps  there  may  be  before  the  ultimate  tribunal  is 
reached.     "Would  it  not  simplify  matters  if  we  adopted  the  same  course  ? 


458  CHUECH  POLITY. 

Our  plan  is  first  to  try  the  synod  as  a  culprit,  then  the  presbytery,  then 
the  session,  and  at  last  we  get  down  to  the  original  ofiender.  No  won- 
der we  never  fail  to  get  into  confusion. 

The  simple  and  natural  course  when  a  case  is  brought  from  a  lower 
to  a  higher  court  is,  to  try  the  cause,  and  not  the  court.  The  thing 
to  be  done  is  to  administer  justice,  that  is,  for  example,  to  decide  whe- 
ther a  member  has  been  rightfully  susj^ended.  AVhy  not  do  this  di- 
rectly, instead  of  indirectly  ?  Why  must  we  get  at  the  ultimate  point 
by  first  having  the  synod  arraigned,  accused  by  one  party  and  defended 
by  another,  and  then  turned  out  of  the  house  as  a  culprit,  and  when  all 
is  done,  Ave  have  to  see  how  the  presbytery  acted,  and  at  last  we  get 
to  the  session.  In  the  state,  if  a  man  brings  a  cause  before  a  lower 
court,  and  it  goes  against  him,  he  appeals  to  the  superior  court;  if 
not  satisfied,  he  takes  it  up  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and,  if  still  ag- 
grieved, he  goes  to  the  Court  of  Errors.  In  every  stej)  he  takes  simply 
his  cause ;  he  does  not  drag  all  the  courts  with  him.  The  case  is  re- 
heard at  every  step,  and  if  injustice  was  done  in  the  original  decision, 
or  in  any  of  the  subsequent  ones,  the  matter  is  set  right.  The  cause 
goes  up  with  all  the  records  in  the  case,  and  is  decided  on  its  merits. 
We  cannot  see  why  we  should  not  adopt  the  same  course.  If  a  man 
is  suspended  unjustly,  in  his  judgment,  by  a  session,  let  him  take  the 
case  to  the  presbytery,  and  have  the  case  (not  the  session)  tried  over 
again.  If  not  satisfied  with  the  decision,  let  him  go  to  the  synod, 
and  have  the  case  (not  the  presbytery  and  session)  re-heard;  and,  if 
still  aggrieved,  let  him  take  the  case  to  the  Assembly,  and  have  it  (and 
not  the  synod,  the  presbytery  and  session)  tried  again.  This,  we  are 
persuaded,^would  save  a  great  deal  of  time  and  trouble,  and  deliver 
us  from  that  labyrinth  in  which  our  higher  courts  never  fail  to  get 
bewildered. 

It  is  a  natural  consequence  of  making  inferior  courts  parties,  to  put 
them  out  of  the  house,  and  deny  them  any  voice  in  the  ultimate  deci- 
sion of  the  case.  What  justice  is  there  in  this?  If  it  is  a  question  of 
fact  or  morals,  or  of  doctrine,  or  of  constitutional  interjjretation,  they 
have  as  much  right  to  be  heard  in  the  last  resort  as  others.  Suppose 
a  Synod  consists  of  three  presbyteries,  one  with  fifty  members,  another 
with  twenty,  and  the  third  with  ten,  and  that  the  first  should  unani- 
mously pronounce  a  given  doctrine  heretical,  then,  in  case  of  an  appeal, 
sixteen  members  might  set  aside  the  judgment  of  fifty.  Is  there  any 
sense  or  reason  in  this?  Is  it  a  personal  matter  with  the  presbytery 
any  more  than  with  the  synod?  Is  a  circuit  judge  excluded  from  his 
seat  in  the  Supreme  Court  when  his  judgment  is  appealed  from? 
This  making  lower  courts  parties,  and  denying  them  a  voice  in  the 
final  judgment,  and,  to  cap  the  climax,  turning  them  literally  out  .of 


EEVISION  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DISCIPLINE.  459 

the  house,  does   appear  to  us  a  monstrous  perversion  of  judicial  prin- 
ciples. 

There  are  several  other  points  in  which  the  obscurity  of  our  book 
was  manifested.  What  is  meant  by  the  synod,  as  a  party,  being  fully 
heard?  Dr.  Rice  said,  it  means  hearing  all  that  the  members  ap- 
pointed by  the  synod  to  defend  its  judgment,  had  to  say.  The  mode- 
rator decided  it  means  hearing  all  that  any  member  of  the  synod,  pre- 
sent at  the  synodical  decision,  might  wish  to  say.  Again,  it  was  dis- 
puted whether  the  complaint  brought  up  the  merits  of  the  case ;  some 
said  it  did,  others,  with  the  moderator,  said  it  did  not ;  and  yet  it  was 
so  impossible  to  get  on  without  bringing  up  the  merits,  that  the  modera- 
tor was  forced  to  admit  that  "it  seemed  necessary  that  some  little 
reference  to  the  history  of  the  case  should  be  made!"  Is  not  this 
pitiable?  We  do  not  blame  our  excellent  moderator,  whom  every- 
body respects  and  loves ;  we  blame  the  system.  The  whole  process  is 
disreputable.  The  session  suspended  an  elder,  no  one  knows  why ;  no 
one  knows  whether  it  was  done  justly  or  unjustly,  regularly  or  irregu- 
larly. The  presbytery  ordered  the  elder  restored  to  office — no  one 
knows  why.  The  synod  confirms  the  action  of  the  presbytery,  and 
the  session  complains  to  the  Assembly — of  what?  we  have  not  the 
slightest  idea,  and  no  one  else  can  have,  from  the  record.  If  the  pro- 
ceedings of  a  civil  court,  or  of  a  court-martial,  were  so  conducted,  and 
so  reported,  what  would  the  public  think  ?  Instead  of  being  behind 
and  below  all  other  tribunals  in  the  mode  of  administering  justice,  the 
Church  courts  should  present  a  model  for  all  other  courts.  This  can 
never  be  done  until  we  have  a  complete  revision  of  our  system. 

h.  Effective  Methods  for  Revision.  [*] 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Beatty  moved  that  the  Assembly  take  up  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline,  commenced  in  the  last 
Assembly,  and  by  it  referred  to  this  body.  He  proposed  the  adoption 
of  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  new  book,  with  a  view  to  its  being  sent 
down  to  the  presbyteries.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Rice  moved  that  the  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  be  referred  to  the  next  Assembly.  This 
motion  was  warmly  seconded  by  Dr.  Musgrave,  and  sustained  by  Drs. 
Elliott,  Junkin,  Nevin,  and  Messrs.  Haskell,  Kempshall,  Miller,  and 
others.  It  was  opposed  by  Dr.  Beatty,  who  urged  that  as  the  work  had 
already  been  seven  years  on  hand,  it  ought  to  be  finally  disposed  of. 
Drs.  Krebs,  Lowrie,  and  Backus  took  the  same  view,  but  Dr.  Rice's 
motion  to  postpone  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority.     We  do  not  know 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assembly;"  topic,  "Revised  Book  of  Disci- 
pline; "  Friiiceion  Review,  1SG4,  p.  513.] 


460  CHUECH  POLITY. 

that  any  surprise  need  be  felt  at  this  decision.  In  the  first  place,  the 
General  Assembly  is  a  large  body.  Its  vis  inertm  is  great.  _  It  re- 
quires a  great  and  continued  force  to  set  it  in  motion. 

In  the  second  place,  in  every  such  body,  and  in  every  community, 
there  is  a  party  opposed  to  all  change.  They  are  wedded  to  old  ways, 
and  cannot  be  persuaded  that  anything  new  is  good.  The  old  naval 
officers  of  England  and  America  opposed  the  introduction  of  steam  into 
the  navy.  It  is  not  surprising  therefore,  when  a  man  has  trod  the 
quarter  deck  as  long  as  Dr.  Musgrave  has  done,  that  he  is  disposed  to 
pitch  any  new  sailing  orders  into  the  sea  without  even  looking  at  them. 
He  has  sailed  in  all  weathers,  and  always  got  into  port ;  he  is  therefore 
satisfied  with  things  as  they  are.  This  class  of  men  are  very  respect- 
able, very  strong,  and  very  confident.  With  them,  seeing  is  believing. 
It  is  no  use  to  tell  them  that  steam  is  surer  and  better  than  wind  as  a 
motive  power.  They  have  sailed  too  long  to  believe  that  a  ship  can 
go  ahead  against  wind  or  tide,  no  matter  how  large  "  a  tea  kettle,"  (as 
an  English  Admiral  called  a  steam  engine,)  she  may  have  on  board. 
These  good  men  can  be  moved  only  by  a  vis  a  tergo.  But  move  they 
must.  Still  for  the  time  being  they  keep  things  steady.  In  the  third 
place,  not  one  in  ten  of  the  General  Assembly  knew  anything  of  the 
new  book.  They  had,  therefore,  no  ground  for  judging  of  its  merits. 
More  efiective  than  any  other  consideration  was  no  doubt  the  desire  to 
get  rid  of  business.  There  is  so  much  more  to  be  done  by  every  As- 
sembly than  can  be  done  deliberately,  that  every  item  is  stricken  from 
the  docket  which  can  with  any  show  of  propriety  be  got  rid  of.  There 
is  also  a  latent  consciousness  that  the  General  Assembly  is  not  a  fit 
body  to  frame  a  Book  of  Discipline,  or  to  discuss  its  several  provisions. 
Its  members  change  year  by  year.  Every  question  comes  up  new  to 
every  mind.  It  must  decide  on  the  first  impression,  or  not  at  all. 
Congress  might  as  well  be  expected,  in  the  midst  of  the  pressure  of  all 
other  business,  to  frame  a  constitution,  as  the  General  Assembly  wisely 
to  frame  a  new  Book  of  Discipline. 

There  are  only  two  ways,  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  this  work  can  be 
well  done.  The  one  is,  to  have  a  convention  called  for  the  purpose,  to 
sit  two  or  three  weeks  ;  and  when  they  have  settled  everything  to  their 
satisfaction,  send  it  down  to  the  presbyteries  to  be  ratified  or  rejected. 
Thus  our  national  constitution  was  framed.  The  other  method  is,  for 
the  presbyteries  to  take  the  Revised  Book  and  carefully  consider,  amend, 
or  reject  it ;  and  then  for  the  Assembly  to  act  definitively  under  their 
guidance.  The  work  of  deliberation  must  be  done  either  in  a  conven- 
tion, or  in  the  presbyteries.  It  cannot  be  done  in  the  Assembly  ;  and 
the  plan  of  having  it  done  by  a  committee  of  eight  or  ten,  experience 
shows  will  not  answer.     The  reasons  for  the  alterations  are  presented  to 


CITATION  OF  JUDICATORIES.  461 

too  few  minds.  The  mass  of  those  who  are  called  to  judge  and  decide 
have  not  considered  the  several  points  to  be  determined,  and  they  can- 
not be  expected  to  act  blindly.  That  something  must  be  done,  we  are 
fully  persuaded.  Our  present  book  is  confused,  contradictory,  and  im- 
practicable. It  cannot  be  acted  upon,  without  a  consumption  of  time 
that  is  intolerable.  In  every  Assembly  where  judicial  business  is  to  be 
transacted,  there  are  confusion,  and  disorder, — decisions  which  shock 
and  offend,  first  one  party  and  then  another,  all  because  the  book  itself 
is  what  it  is.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  to  say  that  our  present  book  was 
framed  by  great  and  good  men.  So  was  the  constitution  of  England  the 
work  of  great  men.  But  it  must  be  altered  or  overthrown  to  suit  the 
change  in  men  and  things.  And  our  old  book,  we  are  persuaded,  must 
be  altered,  or  our  whole  system  will  utterly  break  down.  That  a 
Church  of  three  thousand  ministers  shall  be  occupied,  as  it  may  be  for 
days,  or  even  weeks,  in  its  General  Assembly,  in  determining  the  merits 
of  a  petty  slander  case,  in  any  village  in  the  Union,  is  a  solecism  not 
to  be  longer  endured. 

g  2.  Citation  of  Judicatories.  [*] 

[Book  of  Discipline,  chap,  vii.,  sec.  i.,  par's,  v.  and  vi. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  541 ; 
Comp.  chap,  v.,  sec.  ix. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  525.] 

On  Thursday,  May  25,  Mr,  Plummer,  from  the  committee  on  the 
Pittsburg  memorial,  made  a  final  report,  recommending  that  the  As- 
sembly take  up  and  decide  upon  the  items  in  the  memorial  relating  to 
Church  order  and  discipline.  The  report  was  accepted.  In  pursuance 
of  this  plan,  he  subsequently  moved  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolutions,  viz. 

1.  That  the  proper  steps  be  now  taken  to  cite  to  the  bar  of  the  next'  Assembly 
such  inferior  judicatories  as  are  charged  by  common  fame  with  irregularities. 

2.  That  a  special  committee  be  appointed  to  ascertain  what  inferior  judicatories 
are  thus  charged  by  common  fame;  to  prepare  charges  and  specifications  against 
therfl ;  and  to  digest  a  suitable  plan  of  procedure  in  the  matter,  and  that  said  com- 
mittee be  requested  to  report  as  soon  as  practicable. 

3.  That  as  citation,  on  the  foregoing  plan,  is  the  commencement  of  process  in- 
volving the  right  of  membership  in  the  Assembly,  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  agreeably  to  a  principle  laid  down,  chap.  v.  sec.  9,  of  the  Form 
of  Government,  the  members  of  the  said  judicatories  be  excluded  from  a  seat  in 
the  next  General  Assembly  until  their  case  shall  be  decided. 

The  adoption  of  these  resolutions  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Jessup,  White,  Be- 
man,  Dickinson,  Peters,  and  M'Auley ;  and  advocated  by  Messrs.  Plumer,  Breck- 
inridge, and  Baxter.  After  a  debate  occupying  most  of  the  time  on  Thui-sday 
afternoon  and  Friday  morning  and  afternoon,  the  question  was  taken  and  decided 
in  the  aflSrmative,  yeas  128,  nays  122. 

[*  From  article  on  The  General  Assembly,  same  topic ;  Princeton  Review,  1837, 
p.  436.] 


462  CHUECH  POLITY. 

The  resolutions  were  opposed  on  various  grounds.  1.  It  was  denied 
tliat  the  Assembly  possessed  original  jurisdiction  such  as  it  is  now  pro- 
posed to  exercise.  The  fifth  paragraph  of  sec.  1,  in  the  chapter  on 
Keview  and  Control,  is  the  strong  hold  of  those  who  contend  that  the 
resolutions  are  constitutional.  But  what  is  the  case  contemplated  in 
that  article  ?  It  is,  that  there  has  already  been  some  irregularity,  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  lower  judicatory,  either  apparent  in  the  records, 
or  proclaimed  by  common  fame.  This  undoubtedly  refers  to  a  case  of 
judical  action,  or  erroneous  or  defective  record,  or  a  case  adjudicated 
in  such  a  manner  that  the  trumpet  of  common  fame  proclaims  it 
wrong,  and  such  that  it  can  plainly  be  proved  to  be  wrong  before  the 
superior  judicatory.  In  the  circumstances  specified  in  the  constitution, 
it  would  be  right  for  you  to  cite  a  synod  to  appear  before  you  and 
answer  and  show  what  they  have  done  in  relation  to  the  matter  in 
question,  in  a  case  that  has  been  before  them.  And  after  hearing  their 
answer,  you  are  to  send  the  case  back  to  them,  with  directions  to  do 
what  the  constitution  and  justice  require.  The  words  are  "  After  which," 
that  is,  after  the  citation  and  answer,  not  after  a  trial,  for  the  rule  says 
nothing  about  a  trial ;  but  supposes  that  the  case  is  sent  back  for  trial 
to  the  judicatory  which  is  cited.  We  cannot  try  and  punish  here.  Sup- 
pose we  were  to  cite  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  for  heresy,  in  maintaining, 
in  the  face  of  all  the  former  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly,  that 
slavery  is  consistent  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  institutions  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  Well,  our  committee,  we  will  suppose,  have  cited 
that  synod.  Then  they  must  send  down  all  the  budget  of  charges  they 
have  collected,  to  tell  the  synod  they  must  stay  these  irregular  proceed- 
ings, on  penalty  of  exclusion  from  the  Church.  Every  one  knows  that 
this  cannot  be  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  rule.  Otherwise,  it  will 
make  you  a  court  of  original  jurisdiction,  with  power  to  cut  off  minis- 
ters, directly  contrary  to  every  provision  of  the  book. 

2.  But  admitting  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  you  have  the 
authority  to  cite  a  synod,  how  do  you  get  the  right  to  cite  a  presbytery  ? 
The  rule  says,  "  the  next  superior  judicatory,"  which  limits  it  to  the 
one  immediately  above.  This  provision  is  in  the  chapter  on  Review  and 
Control,  and  it  can  give  authority  only  by  the  express  meaning  of  the 
words.  The  session  is  under  review  and  control  of  the  presbytery,  the 
presbytery  of  the  synod,  and  the  synod  of  the  General  Assembly ;  be- 
cause they  only  have  the  legal  right  to  inspect  their  records.  The 
General  Assembly  is,  therefore,  constitutionally  restricted  to  action  on 
the  synods.  Unless  you  can  show,  by  some  new  ecclesiastical  multipli- 
cation table,  that  the  General  Assembly  is  next  above  a  presbytery  or 
session  or  individual  member,  you  have  no  right  to  issue  a  citation  to 
them,  and  it  would  be  an  act  of  usurpation  in  you  to  do  it.  The  General 


CITATION  OF  JUDICATORIES.  463 

Assembly  has  Indeed  power  to  reprove.  But  can  we  not  reprove  with- 
out citation  and  conviction?  We  can  reprove  immorality  in  the  South 
and  in  the  North,  on  mere  report,  without  alleging  that  any  individual 
is  guilty,  and  so  without  conviction.  The  power  to  cite  presbyteries 
and  Church  sessions  is  not  the  same  with  warning  and  reproving ;  and 
is  in  terms  given  to  another  body,  to  the  next  superior  judicatory.  If 
you  cite  a  presbytery  to  appear  here,  they  will  file  their  plea  in  bar, 
that  you  have  no  authority,  and  they  will  not  answer.  We  have  no 
right  thus  to  take  away  the  constitutional  rights  of  synods,  or  to  strike 
out,  by  a  mere  vote  of  the  Assembly,  an  important  word  from  the  con- 
stitution. If  we  can  interfere  with  presbyteries,  by  the  same  argument 
we  may  interfere  with  the  sessions. 

3.  A  third  objection,  is  the  mode  of  proceeding.  If  these  charges 
were  against  individuals,  we  should  know  how  to  proceed.  But 
that  this  great  court  of  errors  should  leave  its  proper  judicial  business 
to  hunt  up  criminals,  is  most  extraordinary.  You  appoint  a  commit- 
tee to  find  jout  offences,  and  then  to  find  out  the  offenders.  Are  this 
committee  to  be  clothed  with  the  plenary  powers  of  a  Presbyterian  in- 
quisition, to  cite  and  try  whom  they  please,  and  on  what  ground  they 
please  ?  Are  they  to  report  to  you  every  rumour  which  the  blast  of 
the  trumpet  of  common  fame  may  blow  over  the  land  in  any  direc- 
tion ?  Or  by  what  rule  are  they  to  discriminate  ?  We  wish  to  know, 
and  the  churches  ought  to  know,  whether  this  committee  are  to  be 
clothed  with  preliminary  judicial  powers.  If  so,  in  what  do  they  differ 
from  the  prerogatives  of  an  inquisition,  except  that  the  civil  arm  with- 
holds its  power?  Or  what  better  is  a  Protestant  than  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic inquisition  ?  Our  judicatories  are,  in  fact,  to  be  tried  by  this  com- 
mittee, without  opportunity  of  defence ;  to  be  first  adjudged  delin- 
quent, and  then  deprived  of  their  seats ;  while  it  is  perfectly  under- 
stood by  the  commissioners  from  certain  other  judicatories,  concerning 
whose  irregularities  common  fame  is  at  least  equally  loud,  that  if  they 
will  support  this  measure,  no  reports  shall  be  entertained  concerning 
them  by  the  committee,  and  no  words  X)f  reproof  administered  by  the 
Assembly. 

The  whole  mode  of  procedure  is  moreover  unnecessary.  Our  con- 
stitution has  made  ample  provision  for  the  correction  of  all  errors  and 
disorders.  Our  system  is  very  complete.  Cast  your  eye  down  to  the 
source  of  power  in  our  Church,  the  body  of  the  people,  and  see  an 
organized  succession  of  Church  courts,  guarding  the  interests  of  truth, 
and  securing  order  and  purity  up  to  the  General  Assembly.  Then 
look  the  other  way,  and  see  a  system  of  control  and  supervision,  going 
down  in  regular  gradations,  from  the  General  Assembly  to  the  synods, 
from  synods  to  presbyteries,  from  presbyteries  to  individual  ministers 


464  CHURCH  POLITY. 

and  Cliurch  sessions,  and  from  sessions  to  every  individual  member  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  What  can  be  more  complete  than  this 
system  ?  Why  do  we  want  nullification  here  ?  What  interest  is  not 
guarded  ?  What  exigency  is  not  provided  for  ?  There  never  was  a 
government  that  had  a  provision  for  every  case,  like  our  government. 
For  a  case  like  the  present,  where  an  occasional  majority,  a  mere  facti- 
tious majority,  are  determined  to  perpetuate  the  power  of  the  Church 
in  their  own  hands,  and  conscious  that  unless  they  do  it  now,  Provi- 
dence will  never  give  them  another  opportunity,  we  grant  the  consti- 
tution has  not  provided. 

The  proposition  to  exclude  from  the  next  General  Assembly  the 
commissioners  of  all  those  judicatories  which  your  committee  may  think 
proper  to  cite,  is  still  more  obviously  an  outrage  upon  the  constitution. 
Chap.  V,  sect.  9,  to  which  the  resolution  refers,  gives  no  warrant  for 
such  a  proceeding.  That  whole  chapter  relates  to  a  specific  subject,  to 
process  against  a  minister.  Is  the  process,  which  you  are  about  to 
issue,  against  any  member  of  the  next  Assembly  ?  No  man  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Assembly,  until  he  is  commissioned  as  such  by  his  presby- 
tery. And  when  a  man  comes  here  with  his  commission  from  a  pres- 
bytery, he  comes  with  authority  paramount  to  all  the  authority  which 
one  General  Assembly  can  have  over  another.  Your  committee  of 
commissions  are  bound  by  them,  and  not  by  the  votes  of  former  Assem- 
blies. In  chap.  iv.  the  provision  authorizing  a  Church  session  to  sus- 
pend a  member,  under  process,  from  communion,  tallies  exactly  with 
that  respecting  the  trial  of  a  minister.  Here  is,  in  each  case,  an  ex- 
press authority  for  laying  persons  charged  under  a  disability  during 
trial.  Where  is  the  authority  for  laying  a  judicatory  under  disability  ? 
What  has  this  General  Assembly  to  do  in  the  case  at  any  rate  ?  We 
have  not  to  try  them.  When  the  next  General  Assembly  come  up,  if 
they  find  themselves  in  such  a  position  that  it  would  be  a  disgrace  to 
religion  to  allow  the  membership  of  such  and  such  persons,  they  might 
possibly  pass  a  vote  of  exclusion.  But  what  have  we  to  do  with  the 
regulations  of  the  next  General  Assembly  ?  This  is  not  a  perpetual 
body  like  a  synod  or  presbytery.  The  members  of  the  next  Assembly 
will  come  up  with  their  commission  from  the  presb}i;eries,  and  how  can 
your  committee  of  commissions  exclude  them  from  their  seats  ?  Besides, 
why  should  Ave  punish  presbyteries  ?  This  suspension  of  tlie  right  of 
representation  is  a  real  punishment.  Why  punish  the  presbyteries 
when  only  the  synod  is  cited  ?  Or  are  we  to  have  a  new  measure 
wedge  so  beveled  as  to  split  only  on  one  side,  and  so  as  to  save  such 
presbyteries  in  the  synods  cited  as  are  of  a  fair,  orthodox  complexion, 
and  let  them  remain  in  good  standing  ?  If  that  is  the  plan,  we  should 
like  to  see  the  warrant  for  it  in  the  book.     To  illustrate  the  character 


CTTATIOX  OF  JUDICATORIES.  466 

of  this  high-handed  and  overbearing  measure — a  measure  hitherto  un- 
paralleled in  the  history  of  legislative  or  judicial  proceedings — suppose 
that  one  of  these  United  States  should  come  into  collision  with  the 
national  government,  on  some  point,  "what  would  be  said  if  the  govern- 
ment should  propose,  as  a  first  step,  to  cite  a  sovereign  state  to  appear 
at  the  bar  of  congress,  and  then  appoint  a  committee  to  act  as  the  scav- 
engers of  common  fame,  and  bring  into  congress  an  ass-load  of  such 
matters  as  common  fame  deals  in,  for  trial ;  and  to  crown  the  whole, 
propose  during  the  pendency  of  the  process,  to  deprive  the  representa- 
tives of  that  state  from  their  seat  in  the  next  congress  ?  Why,  the 
next  congress  would  puff  at  such  a  resolution,  just  as  the  next  General 
Assembly  will  puff  your  vote  to  deprive  its  commissioners  of  their  seats. 
They  will  look  at  the  commissions  of  the  presbyteries,  and  will  run 
over  the  puny  and  ineffectual  legislation  of  this  Assembly,  just  as  a 
railroad  car,  impelled  by  a  powerful  locomotive,  runs  over  a  rye  straw 
that  may  lie  across  its  track. 

The  advocates  of  the  resolutions  argued  substantially  thus.  The 
main  question  relates  of  course  to  the  power  of  the  Assembly.  Has  it 
the  right  to  act  in  the  manner  proposed,  viz.,  to  summon  inferior  judi- 
catories to  its  bar,  and  to  institute  and  issue  process  against  them  ?  We 
maintain  that  it  has  both  in  virtue  of  specific  provisions  of  the  consti- 
tution, and  of  the  general  nature  of  our  system.  As  to  the  first  point, 
it  is  very  plain.  It  has  been  said,  on  the  other  side,  that  the  Assembly 
is  a  mere  court  of  errors,  and  possesses  no  original  jurisdiction.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  fact.  It  is  a  court  of  general  review  and  control. 
It  can  direct  its  eye  over  the  whole  Church,  and  wherever  it  sees  evils 
to  be  corrected,  it  can  correct  them.  The  mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  in- 
formed of  such  evils,  and  the  mode  of  correction  are  definitely  pre- 
scribed. The  ordinary  means  of  conveying  such  information  are  the 
complaints,  appeals  and  references  of  lower  judicatories,  or  of  their 
members,  or  the  review  of  records.  But  there  may  be  cases  which 
none  of  these  reach ;  an  express  provision  is  made  to  meet  su«b  cases. 
"Inferior  judicatories,"  says  the  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  7,  sec.  i.,  5, 
"may  sometimes  entirely  neglect  to  perform  their  duty;  by  which  ne- 
glect, heretical  opinions  or  corrupt  practices  may  be  allowed  to  gain 
ground,  or  offenders  of  a  very  gross  character  may  be  suffered  to  escape; 
or  some  circumstances  in  their  proceedings,  of  very  great  irregularity, 
may  not  be  distinctly  recorded  by  them ;  in  any  of  which  cases  their 
records  will  by  no  means  exhibit  to  the  superior  judicatory  a  full  view 
of  their  proceedings.  If,  therefore,  the  superior  judicatory  be  well 
advised  by  common  fame,  that  such  irregularities  or  neglects  have  oc- 
curred on  the  part  of  the  inferior  judicatory,  it  is  incumbent  on  them 
to  take  cognizance  of  the  same,  and  to  examine,  deliberate  and  judge 
30 


466  CHURCH  POLITY. 

in  the  whole  matter  as  completely  as  if  it  had  been  recorded,  and  thus 
brought  up  by  the  review  of  the  records."  Here  is  not  merely  the 
authority,  but  the  command  to  do  precisely  what  these  resolutions  pro- 
pose. When  common  fame,  says  the  rule,  informs  the  superior  judi- 
catory of  the  existence  of  error  or  disorder,  it  is  incumbent  on  that 
judicatory  to  take  cognizance  thereof,  and  to  examine,  deliberate  and 
judge  in  the  whole  matter.  Common  fame  has  informed  this  Assembly 
of  the  existence  of  irregularities  of  a  very  serious  nature.  Not  vague, 
uncertain  rumour,  but  definite  statements,  which,  we  are  morally  sure, 
are  correct.  We  know  that  there  are  many  synods  embracing  churches 
not  regularly  organized,  ministers  and  elders  who  never  have  adopted 
our  Confession  of  Faith.  We  know  that  these  and  other  evils  have 
been  long  continued  and  widely  extended,  and  we  propose  to  act  in 
relation  to  them  precisely  as  the  Book  of  Discipline  directs.  The  first 
step,  says  the  rule,  to  be  taken  is,  "to  cite  the  judicatory  alleged  to  have 
offended  to  appear  at  a  specified  time  and  place."  Well,  sir,  is  not  this 
precisely  what  we  propose  to  do  ? 

It  is  objected,  however,  that  this  whole  rule  refers  to  a  case  of  judicial 
action  in  the  court  .below,  a  special  case  improperly  adjudicated,  the 
knowledge  of  which  is  brought  to  the  superior  court,  which  is  then 
authorized  to  examine  into  it  and  order  it  to  be  rectified.  There  is, 
however,  no  such  limitation ;  and  it  would  be  preposterous  that  there 
should  be.  The  rule  specifies  any  "neglect  or  irregularity,"  which 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  does  not  confine  the  power  of  the  supe- 
rior court  to  specific  cases  of  improper  or  irregular  decisions.  If  it 
were  known  that  Socinianism  was  allowed  to  be  openly  professed  by 
the  members  of  some  of  our  presbyteries,  may  such  presbyteries  escape 
all  interference  or  control  by  simply  doing  nothing,  by  neglecting  all 
notice  of  such  departures  from  the  truth  and  all  record  on  their 
minutes?  Would  not  the  superior  court,  under  the  rule  which  directs 
that  when,  from  the  neglect  of  a  judicatory  to  perform  its  duty, 
heretical  opinions  or  corrupt  practices  are  allowed  to  gain  ground,  it 
is  incumbent  on  the  superior  judicatory  to  take  cognizance  of  the 
same,  and  to  examine  and  judge  in  the  whole  matter,  have  a  right 
to  cite  such  negligent  judicatory  and  examine  into  the  case?  This 
is  the  precise  case  for  which  the  rule  was  made. 

1  But  again  it  is  asked,  "  What  can  you  do,  if  you  do  cite  ?  you  can 
only  remit  the  charges  and  tell  tlie  inferior  judicatory  they  must  correct 
their  irregularities.  You  cannot  try  and  punish  here."  Suppose  this 
to  be  true,  what  has  it  to  do  with  the  question?  The  objection  has  re- 
ference to  the  mode  of  issuing  the  case,  and  not  to  the  right,  or  to  the 
mode  of  commencing  the  process.  The  resolution  on  the  very  face  of 
it,  professes  to  be  the  first  step  in  the  process.     When  the  judicatories 


CITATION  OF  JUDICATORIES.  467 

cited  appear  at  your  bar,  the  first  question  to  be  decided  will  be,  are 
the  charges  sustained  ?  and  the  second,  how  is  the  cause  to  be  disposed 
of?  It  will  be  time  enough  then  to  decide,  whether  the  Assembly  shall 
"deliberate  and  judge  in  the  whole  matter,"  or  send  the  case  down  to 
the  implicated  judicatories  with  an  injunction  to  correct  the  evils  com- 
plained of.  The  objection,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  premature.  It 
would  be  absurd  however  that  a  court  should  have  the  power  to 
decide,  and  then  be  obliged  to  leave  the  execution  of  their  decision 
to  the  option  of  the  court  below.  The  superior  judicatory  has  un- 
doubtedly the  right  to  see  that  its  decisions  are  carried  into  effect. 
This  however  is  not  now  the  point.  The  simple  question  is  about 
citation. 

The  perfect  regularity  of  the  course  proposed  is'so  plain  that  it  is  in 
various  ways  admitted  by  the  brethren  on  the  other  side,  as  far  as  synods 
are  concerned ;  the  grand  objection  is  that  the  right  of  citation  is  confined 
to  the  judicatory  next  above,  and  consequently  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly has  no  authority  to  cite  a  presbytery.  To  this  objection  it  would  be 
a  sufiicient  answer  to  say  that  the  resolutions  make  no  mention  of  presby- 
teries. They  simply  recommend  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to 
ascertain  whether  there  are  sufficient  grounds  to  cite  any  inferior  judi- 
catories to  your  bar.  If  that  committee  should,  in  their  report,  go  be- 
yond synods,  and  recommend  the  citation  of  presbyteries,  it  would  be 
time  enough  to  object  to  the  adoption  of  such  recommendation,  that 
the  Assembly  had  no  immediate  jurisdiction  over  the  presbyteries; 
that  they  could  be  reached  only  through  the  synods.  But,  if  in  the 
ascending  series  of  our  system  of  Church  courts,  so  highly  praised  by 
the  eloquent  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  a  synod  may  be  omitted  in 
case  of  appeal,  complaint,  or  reference,  and  the  cause  be  brought  di- 
rectly from  the  presbytery  to  the  Assembly,  as  is  constantly  allowed, 
can  any  good  reason  be  assigned,  why,  in  the  descending  series,  a  synod  ^ 
may  not  in  like  manner  be  passed  over,  and  the  Assembly  act  im- 
mediately on  the  presbytery  ?  It  is  indeed  proper  and  expedient,  in 
the  great  majority  of  cases,  that  both  in  ascending  and  descending  the 
cause  should  go  regularly  up  or  down  through  the  several  courts,  but 
this  is  not  always  the  case.  /  There  are  occasions  when  it  is  just  as 
necessary,  for  the  sake  of  speedy  justice,  that  the  highest  court  should 
act  on  a  remotely  inferior  one,  as  that  an  appeal  should  come  directly 
from  the  latter  to  the  former.  The  book  renders  it  incumbent  on  the 
next  superior  judicatory  to  take  cognizance  of  the  neglect  of  the  court  , 
below,  but  this  does  not  forbid  the  highest  court  from  interfering  when 
any  special  emergency  renders  it  necessary  or  desirable.  If,  while  the 
Assembly  was  actually  in  session,  a  presbytery  should  decide  that  they 
would  depose  any  of  their  ministers  who  should  preach  the  doctrine  of 


468  CHURCH  POLITY. 

the  trinity,  we  suspect  few  men  on  this  floor  would  think  it  necessary 
to  wait  for  the  synod  to  interfere,  especially  if  they  had  reason  to  be- 
lieve the  synod  would  sustain  the  decision. 

Besides,  it  has  been  generally  understood  that  the  brethren  opposite 
entertained  different  opinions  as  to  the  power  of  the  Assembly  from 
those  which  they  now  express.  It  was  supposed  they  believed  that 
this  body  could  stretch  its  long  arm  over  a  synod  and  reach  a  presby- 
tery, and  even  make  and  unmake  it  at  pleasure.  It  is  not  many  years 
since  they  actually  exercised  this  power,  and  in  known  opposition  to 
the  wishes  of  a  synod,  constituted  a  new  presbytery  within  its  bounds. 
They  were  understood  then  to  teach  that  the  Assembly  was  clothed  with 
^.JllfiUary  powers ;  that  as  a  synod  included  presbyteries  it  possessed  their 
powers  in  a  wider  sphere,  and  that  the  General  Assembly,  including 
both  synods  and  presbyteries,  might  do  all  that  either  could  do,  within 
the  whole  compass  of  the  Church.  Can  these  brethren  complain  if  we 
should  assume  this  matter  as  a  res  adjudicata  ?  Must  they  cry  out  the 
moment  their  own  principles  are  commended  to  their  acceptance  ?  Do 
they  suppose  that  the  constitution  means  one  thing  when  they  are 
in  the  majority,  and  another  when  they  are  in  the  minority?  One  bro- 
ther indeed,  (  Mr.  E.  White, )  all  but  avows  this  principle.  He  says, 
"  The  act  of  the  General  Assembly  erecting  a  presbytery  in  this  city 
was  null  and  void,  and,  in  my  view,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  acted 
right  in  nullifying  the  procedure,"  though  he  voted  to  condemn  the 
synod,  and  to  enforce  the  act  he  pronounces  null  and  void.  Such  can- 
dour, however,  is  unusual.  Taking  then  the  extreme  supposition  that 
the  Assembly  had  not,  by  the  constitution,  the  right  to  act  directly 
upon  presbyteries,  yet  as  these  brethren  have  legalized  the  opposite  in- 
terpretation, they  would  have  no  reason  to  complain  if  we  should  now 
act  upon  it.  We  say  this,  however,  merely  on  the  supposition  that  the 
case  of  citation  of  a  presbytery  is  parallel  to  that  of  creating  such  a 
body.  This  we  do  not  admit,  and  therefore  are  not  prepared  to  allow 
that  even  those  who  have  hitherto  condemned  the  erection  of  a  pres- 
bytery by  the  General  Assembly,  are  inconsistent  in  advocating  the 
right  of  citation,*  The  constitution  is  not  a  donation  of  powers,  It  is  a 
limitation  of  them.  The  General  Assembly  does  not  derive  its  powers 
from  the  constitution,  but  from  the  delegation  of  the  presbyteries.  It 
is  the  presbyteries  in   Assembly   collected.     It  is  therefore  an  un- 

*  We  think  it  right  to  say  that  we  have  never  agreed  with  many  of  our  breth- 
ren in  the  opinion  that  the  Assembly  has  not,  under  any  circnmstances,  the  right 
to  form  a  presbytery,  without  consent  of  the  synod  or  synods  to  which  its  constitu- 
ent members  belong.  AVe  believe  the  erection  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia was  unconstitutional,  not  because  of  want  of  power  in  the  Assembly,  but 
OH'  account  of  the  mode  in  which  they  exercised  their  authority. 


CITATION  OF  JUDICATORIES.  469 

sound  principle  that  the  Assembly  has  no  right  to  exercise  any  power 
not  expressly  granted.  It  has  the  right  to  do  any  thing  in  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties  as  a  supreme  judicatory  and  supervising  body  of 
the  Church,  which  the  constitution  does  not  forbid.  The  presbyteries 
have  limited  and  circumscribed  the  inherent  powers  of  this  body.  We 
have  no  right  to  pass  those  limits.  We  can  do  nothing  the  constitu- 
tion forbids,  but  we  can  do  a  vast  many  things  which  it  does  not  en- 
join. This  whole  discussion,  however,  is  premature.  Should  the  pro- 
posed committee  recommend  the  citation  of  presbyteries,  we  can  then 
decide  whether  we  have  the  right  to  cite  them  or  not. 

The  principal  objection,  however,  is  directed  against  the  resolution 
which  proposes  that  the  members  of  judicatories  cited  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  a  seat  in  the  next  Assembly.  The  argument  on  which 
this  resolution  is  supported  may  be  very  briefly  stated.  It  is  readily 
admitted  that  there  is  no  express  warrant  for  such  a  proceeding  in  the 
Book  of  Discipline.  The  authority  for  it,  however,  is  not  the  less  clear 
and  satisfactory.  The  constitution  expressly  recognizes  the  right  of  a 
superior  judicatory  to  cite  and  try  an  inferior  one.  This  is  admitted. 
But  the  constitution  makes  no  specific  directions  how  the  trial  is  to  be 
conducted.  Does  it  follow  that  it  cannot  be  conducted  at  all  ?  Does 
the  constitution  recognize  a  right,  and  impose  a  duty,  and  then,  by 
mere  silence,  preclude  the  possibility  of  exercising  the  right,  or  dis- 
charging the  duty  ?  Certainly  not.  If  the  Assembly  has  the  right  of 
trying,  it  has  the  right  of  ordering  the  trial,  and,  in  the  absence  of 
special  limitations  or  directions,  must  be  guided  by  the  nature  of  our 
system,  by  precedent,  and  the  general  principles  of  laAv  and  justice. 
The  constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  on  the  senate  the  right  of 
trying  public  officers  when  impeached,  but  it  prescribes  no  mode  of 
procedure.  Must  the  proceedings  therefore  stop,  or  be  arrested  at  every 
step  by  the  demand  of  an  express  warrant  to  collect  testimony,  to  take 
depositions,  or  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  ?  When  the  right  to  try 
is  conferred,  every  thing  else  is  left  to  be  regulated  by  precedent,  the 
general  principles  of  law,  and  the  necessities  of  the  case.  In  like  man- 
ner the  constitution  recognizes  the  right  of  congress  to  preserve  its  own 
authority ;  but  where  is  the  warrant  for  its  committees  of  investigation, 
for  its  power  of  arrest,  its  right  of  expelling  its  own  members?  There 
is  no  more  reasonable  and  universally  recognized  principle  than  that  a 
grant  of  power  implies  a  grant  of  all  that  is  requisite  for  its  legitimate 
exercise.  When  therefore  our  constitution  recognizes  the  right  of  the 
Assembly  to  cite  and  try  inferior  judicatories,  it  recognizes  the  right  to 
conduct  such  trial.  It  prescribes  minutely  the  method  to  be  adopted 
when  an  individual  is  on  trial  before  a  session  or  presbytery,  but  it 
gives  scarcely  any  directions  for  the  mode  of  proceeding  when  a  judi- 


470  CHURCH  POLITY. 

catory  is  on  trial.  The  only  course  therefore  to  be  taken  is  to  consult 
the  nature  of  our  system,  and  the  general  rules  of  justice  and  propriety. 
In  our  system  we  find  the  principle  distinctly  recognized  that  when  a 
man  is  on  trial  before  a  judicatory,  he  ceases  to  have  a  right  to  a  seat 
in  that  judicatory,  until  his  cause  is  issued ;  and  still  further,  that  even 
when  the  decisions  of  an  inferior  court  are  under  review  in  the  superior 
one,  the  members  of  the  former  are  excluded  from  their  seats.  These, 
especially  the  former,  are  not  merely  constitutional  rules,  but  they  are 
self-evidently  just  and  reasonable.  Now  by  parity  of  reasoning,  when 
a  synod  is  on  trial  before  this  house,  its  members  have  no  right  to  a 
seat  in  it.  The  resolution  refers  to  chap.  v.  sect.  9,  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, for  no  other  purpose  than  to  show  that  the  constitution  recog- 
nizes the  correctness  of  the  principle  upon  which  the  Assembly  pro- 
poses to  act.  As  to  the  objection  that  the  judicatories  in  question  are 
not  on  trial  before  this  Assembly,  and  that  the  next  Assembly  may  dis- 
regard our  decision,  we  answer  that  these  judicatories  are  placed  on 
trial  the  moment  they  are  cited ;  the  citation  is  the  commencement  of  a 
judicial  process,  and  the  next  Assembly  will  be  as  much  bound  to  re- 
gard the  preliminary  decision  of  this  house,  as  its  final  decision.  When 
this  house  decides  that  there  is  suflicient  ground  to  cite  a  particular 
synod,  and  to  suspend  its  members  from  a  right  to  a  seat,  its  de- 
cision is  as  much  obligatory,  as  when  it  decides  in  the  issue  of  a  case 
on  the  final  deposition  or  excommunication  of  a  person  or  persons 
regularly  on  trial.  Its  decisions  may  be  puffed  at ;  but  it  will  be  in 
violation  of  the  provision  of  the  constitution  and  of  justice,  that  no 
judicial  decision  shall  be  reversed,  except  by  regular  process. 

§  3.    Appeals  and  Complaints. 

a.  Appeals  in  Cases  not  Judicial.  [*] 

[^Book  of  Discipline,  chap,  vii.,  sec.  ii.,  par.  1,  Digest  of  1873,  p.  548.] 

A.  D.  Metp-alf  and  others  complained  against  the  Synod  of  Vir- 
ginia, for  deciding  that  appeals  may  lie  in  cases  not  judicial.  The 
decision  complained  of,  the  reasons  of  complaint  assigned  by  the  com- 
plainants, and  the  whole  record  of  the  synod  in  the  case  were  read. 
The  two  parties,  the  complainants  and  the  synod,  having  been  heard, 
the  roll  was  called  that  each  member  of  the  Assembly  might  have  an 
opportunity  of  expressing  his  opinion.  After  which  the  vote  was  taken 
and  the  complaint  was  sustained.  That  is,  the  General  Assembly 
decided  that  appeals  cannot  lie  except  in  judicial  cases. 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assembly ;  topic,  "  Complaint  of  A.  D.  Melealfand 
others  against  the  Synod  of  Virginia;" — Princeton  Review,  1839,  p.  429.] 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  471 

We  regret  that  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  present  such  a  view  of  this 
case,  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to  give  on  similar  occasions.  We 
have  no  statement,  in  the  Minutes,  of  the  nature  of  the  question  decided 
by  the  Synod  of  Virginia ;  nor  any  report  of  the  arguments  for  and 
against  sustaining  the  complaint.  We  are  obliged,  therefore,  to  content 
ourselves  with  the  following  remarks  on  the  principle  involved  in  the 
above  decision  of  the  Assembly, 

As  this  subject  has  already  been  discussed  at  some  length  in  our 
pages,*  it  may  seem  unnecessary  to  say  any  more  on  the  subject.  As, 
however,  the  recent  decision  has  again  brought  it  before  the  churches,  it 
may  not  be  improper  to  devote  a  few  pages  to  its  consideration.  It  is 
really  a  matter  of  importance.  It  would  be  a  hard  case  if  a  party,  suffer- 
ing under  a  grievous  wrong,  should  be  turned  away  from  the  bar  of  our 
highest  judicatory,  merely  on  the  ground  that  he  had  mistaken  the  na- 
ture of  his  remedy.  The  history  of  this  question  is  a  little  curious.  We 
have  had  a  superior  judicatory  in  our  Church  for  more  than  a  hundred 
and  twenty  years.  During  about  seventy  years  of  this  period,  our  disci- 
pline was  conducted  according  to  the  Westminster  Directory,  In  1789 
our  present  constitution  went  into  operation  ;  which  was  submitted  to  an 
extensive  revision  and  alteration,  as  to  matters  of  detail,  in  1821, 
Under  these  several  systems,  appeals  and  complaints  were  allowed  with- 
out hindrance  or  contradiction,  from  any  kind  of  decision  in  an  inferior 
judicatory  by  a  person  who  felt  himself  aggrieved,  until  1834,  Then, 
for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  as  far  as  we  know,  the  idea  was  started 
that  appeals  and  complaints  could  be  made  only  in  cases  strictly  judicial. 

The  occasion  on  which  this  doctrine  was  advanced  was  the  following : 
The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  had  passed  an  act  by  which  they  first  received 
the  Second  Presbytery  as  organized  by  the  Assembly  ;  secondly,  united 
that  presbytery  Avith  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia ;  and,  thirdly, 
divided  this  united  presbytery  by  a  geographical  line.  From  this  act 
the  Assembly's  presbytery  appealed  and  complained.  When  the  case 
came  before  the  Assembly  the  Rev.  Samuel  G.  Winchester,  in  an  in- 
genious and  eloquent  speech,  which  was  afterwards  published  in  various 
forms,  took  the  ground  that  "it  is  only  from  the  decisions  of  a  judica- 
tory sitting  as  a  court,  for  judicial  business,  that  appeals  and  com- 
plaints can  be  entertained  ?"  That  this  novel  doctrine  was  not  at  that 
time  the  doctrine  of  the  synod,  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  defended, 
is  plain,  from  the  fact,  that  they  had  referred  for  adjudication  to  that 
very  Assembly  "  An  appeal  and  complaint  of  the  Fifth  Church,  Phila- 
delphia, relative  to  the  call  of  Dr.  Beman."  f     That  venerable  body 

*  See  Biblical  Eepertory,  1835,  January  and  April  Numbers,  [articles  on  ''  New 
Ecclesiastical  Law,' ^  by  Dr.  Samuel  Miller.] 

t  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1834,  p,  8. 


472  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

therefore,  could  hardly  be  surprised  that  the  Assembly  overruled  Mr. 
Winchester's  plea,  and  proceeded  to  exercise  a  jurisdiction  which  had 
been  thus  explicitly  recognised  by  the  very  body  in  whose  behalf  the 
plea  was  urged.  Though  the  synod  was  thus  free  from  this  new  doctrine 
in  May  1834,  it  grew  in  such  sudden  favour,  that  Avhen  that  body  met 
the  following  autumn,  they  decided  not  merely  that  appeals  and  com- 
plaints could  not  lie  except  in  judicial  cases,  but  even  that  protests 
were  in  the  same  predicament.  This  is  an  instructive  illustration  of 
the  fact  that  the  wisest  and  best  men  sometimes  allow  themselves  to  be 
run  away  with  by  a  plausible  idea,  though  contrary  to  all  their  own 
previous  professions  and  practice.  This,  however,  was  a  mere  tem- 
porary delusion.  The  members  of  that  synod  who  had  signed  or 
allowed  protests  in  all  kinds  of  cases  before,  still  continued  to  sign  or 
allow  them,  with  equal  freedom,  their  own  decision  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  We  had  fondly  hoped  that  the  whole  doctrine  was 
quietly  forgotten.  We  had  good  reason  for  this  hoj^e.  We  found  its 
very  authors  and  advocates  disregarding  it  the  very  next  year ;  acting 
as  though  no  such  doctrine  had  ever  been  broached.  If  they  prac- 
tically abandoned  it  as  untenable,  we  may  be  excused  for  feeling  some 
surprise  at  its  resurrection  in  a  new  and  distant  quarter.  It  is,  how- 
ever, shorn  of  its  just  proportions.  The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  extended 
the  doctrine  to  appeals,  complaints  and  protests.  Thus  putting  minori- 
ties completely  under  the  feet  of  majorities,  not  allowing  them  even  the 
right  of  recording  their  dissent  with  the  reasons  for  it.  Mr.  Winches- 
ter confined  the  doctrine  to  appeals  and  complaints ;  these  Virginia 
gentlemen  to  appeals  alone.  In  this  last  form  it  is  certainly  less 
objectionable  than  in  either  of  the  others. 

In  order  to  understand  this  matter,  we  must  know  precisely  what  is 
meant  by  judicial  decisions,  to  which  it  is  said,  appeals  and  complaints, 
or  appeals  alone,  are  confined.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  confusion 
and  error  often  occasioned  by  the  mere  designation  of  our  ecclesiasti- 
cal bodies  as  courts  or  judicatories.  They  are  so  called  Avhen  not 
sitting  in  judicial  capacity.  We  find  lawyers  much  troubled  to  know 
what  we  mean  by  courts ;  and  disposed  to  run  analogies  between  the 
difierent  civil  tribunals  and  those  found  in  our  Church.  This  has 
been  a  fruitful  source  of  mistakes  as  to  the  nature  of  our  form  of 
government. 


If  our  system  and  nomenclature  trouble  the  lawyers,  it  is  no  less 
true  that  the  laAvyers  trouble  us.  They  often  bring  with  them  into 
ecclesiastical  bodies  modes  of  thinking  and  reasoning  borrowed  from 
their  previous  pursuits,  which  are  entirely  inappropriate  to  our  system. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  473 

Our  good  brother,  Winchester,  will  excuse  our  saying  this  is  precisely 
his  difficulty.  His  whole  printed  speech  on  the  subject  before  us,  is 
distinguished  by  this  lawyer-like  kind  of  reasoning ;  a  strenuous  in- 
sisting on  the  precise  legal  sense  of  terms,  and  thence  deriving  a  rule 
of  construction  which  makes  the  constitution  speak  a  language  which 
it  was  never  intended  to  speak. 

Our  courts  are  bodies  sui  generis ;  they  include  within  themselves 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial  powers.  Yet  this  division  is  in  a  great 
measure  arbitrary.  These  several  powers  are  but  different  modes  of  ex- 
ercising the  general  governing  authority  in  the  Church ;  and  it  is  often 
very  difficult  to  say  whether  a  particular  act  should  be  placed  under  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  heads.  Still  the  classification,  though  not  so 
definite  as  might  be  desired,  is  useful.  To  the  exercise  of  legislative 
powers  are  referred  the  numerous  rules  which  constitute  our  Form  of 
Government,  which  were  enacted  in  a  certain  prescribed  way.  To  the 
same  head  belongs  the  various  standing  rules,  which,  though  they  form  no 
part  of  the  constitution,  are  of  force  until  properly  repealed ;  such,  for 
example,  as  the  rules  which  regulate  the  reception  of  foreign  ministers, 
&c.  The  head  of  executive  powers  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  all,  as 
to  it  belongs  almost  every  act,  except  such  as  concern  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline, which  is  designed  to  carry  into  efiect  the  various  provisions  of  our 
complicated  system.  Hence  the  examination,  the  licensing,  ordain- 
ing, installing,  dismissing  ministers  ;  the  erection,  division,  and  dissolu- 
tion of  churches,  presbyteries  and  synods,  are  all  executive  acts.  On 
the  other  hand,  "the  judicial  power  of  the  Church,"  says  Principal 
Hill,  of  Scotland,  "apj)ears  in  the  infliction  or  removal  of  those  cen- 
sures which  belong  to  a  spiritual  society."  This  passage  has  been  quot- 
ed as  defining  the  nature  of  those  acts  from  Avhich  alone  complaints 
and  appeals  can  properly  be  taken.  The  class  of  acts  contemplated, 
therefore,  is  that  which  concerns  the  infliction  or  removal  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal censures.  That  this  is  a  correct  statement  of  the  case,  further  ap- 
pears from  the  nature  of  the  arguments  by  which  this  doctrine  is  sus- 
tained. These  arguments  are  derived  from  the  words  cause,  trial,  sentence, 
parties,  &c.,  which  occur  in  the  chapter  which  treats  of  appeals  and  com- 
plaints, and  which,  it  is  said,  determine  the  nature  of  the  cases  from 
which  an  appeal  may  lie,  or  against  which  a  complaint  may  be  made. 

The  definition  given  above  of  judicial  acts,  viz:  that  they  are  such 
as  relate  to  the  infliction  or  removal  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  is,  how- 
ever, far  from  being  complete.  A  Church  court  often  sits  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  without  any  reference  either  to  the  infliction  or  re- 
moval of  censure.  Take  the  case  before  the  last  Assembly.  The 
Synod  of  Virginia  decided  that  an  appeal  could  lie  in  cases  not  judi- 
cial.    Mr.  A.  D.  Metcalf,  and  others  complain  of  this  decision.     The 


474  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

matter  comes  before  the  Assembly.  That  body,  being  duly  warned  by 
the  moderator  that  it  is  about  to  sit  in  its  judicial  capacity,  hears  what 
the  synod  has  to  say  in  defence  of  its  decision,  and  what  the  complain 
ants  had  to  say  against  it,  and  then  gave  their  judgment.  The  Assem- 
bly acted  judicially;  it  sat  in  judgment  on  the  decision  of  a  lower 
court.  Yet  it  neither  inflicted  nor  removed  any  ecclesiastical  censure. 
The  Synod  of  Virginia  Avas  no  more  censured  by  having  its  decision 
reversed,  than  a  district  court  of  the  United  States  is  censured  when 
the  supreme  court  reverses  its  opinion  on  a  point  of  law.  There  are, 
therefore,  a  multitude  of  cases  in  which  our  courts  act  judicially, 
which  are  not  judicial  cases,  in  the  sense  of  the  above-cited  definition ; 
cases  in  which  there  is  no  offence,  no  offender,  no  testimony,  and  no  trial 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  terms.  Besides,  a  case  which  is  properly  ex- 
ecutive in  one  stage,  may  become  judicial  in  another  stage  of  its  pro- 
gress. Or  to  speak  more  correctly,  any  executive  act  of  a  lower  court 
may  be  made  the  subject  of  judicial  examination  in  a  higher  one. 
Thus,  for  example,  when  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  as 
organized  by  the  Assembly,  divided  the  Fifth  Presbyterian  Church  in 
that  city,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  people,  Thomas 
Bradford,  and  others  of  the  aggrieved  party,  brought  the  matter  be- 
fore the  Assembly  of  1835.  There  the  case  was  regularly  adjudicated; 
both  parties  were  heard,  and  the  decision  was  reversed.  This  new 
doctrine,  therefore,  rests  upon  a  very  unstable  basis.  It  is  founded  on 
an  imperfect  classification  of  the  acts  of  our  judicatories ;  and  assumes 
that  the  judicial  function  has  reference  to  the  mere  infliction  or  remo- 
val of  censures. 

Let  us  examine  the  nature  of  the  arguments  which  have  been  ad- 
duced in  support  of  this  new  doctrine.  Our  constitution  says,  "  That 
every  kind  of  decision  which  is  formed  in  any  Church  judicatory,  ex- 
cept the  highest,  is  subject  to  the  review  of  a  superior  judicatory,  and 
may  be  carried  up  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  four  following  ways :  1. 
General  review  and  control ;  2.  Eeference ;  3.  Appeal ;  and  4.  Com- 
plaint." The  question  is,  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  plain  declaration? 
It  does  not  mean,  because  it  does  not  say,  that  every  individual  deci- 
sion, but  every  kind  of  decision  may  be  carried  up  in  either  of  these 
four  ways.  These  different  forms  of  redress  contemplate  different  cir- 
cumstances, and  are  not  all  available  in  every  particular  case.  A  ref- 
erence, for  example,  must  be  made  by  the  body  itself,  and  not  by  an 
individual  member ;  but  the  body  may  refer  any  kind  of  case.  An 
appeal  supposes  an  aggrieved  party,  but  he  may  appeal  from  any  kind 
of  decision  which  directly  affects  himself.  A  complaint  supposes  some 
kind  of  impropriety  in  the  act  complained  of,  but  it  may  be  entered 
against  any  kind  of  act  alleged  to  be  improper.     So  that  any  kind  of 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  475 

decision  may  be  regularly  brought  up  in  each  of  the  several  ways  speci- 
fied above.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  this  article,  might  be  in- 
ferred with  certainty  from  the  fact  that  it  has  always  been  so  under- 
stood and  acted  upon ;  and  that  it  is  almost  a  literal  transcript  of  the 
Scottish  rule  on  the  same  subject,  which  has  always  been  interpreted 
and  applied  in  the  same  way.  We  are  now  told,  however,  that  this  is 
not  its  meaning ;  that  we  must  lay  particular  stress  on  the  word  or. 
'  Every  kind  of  decision  may  be  carried  up  in  one  or  the  other  of  the 
four  following  ways  ;'  one  kind  in  one  way  and  another  kind  in  another 
way.  In  the  Scotch  rule,  however,  whence  ours  was  taken,  there  is  no 
or.  Principal  Hill  gives  it  thus  :  "  Every  ecclesiastical  business  that 
is  transacted  in  any  Church  judicatory  is  subject  to  the  review  of  its 
ecclesiastical  superiors,  and  may  be  brought  before  the  court  immedi- 
ately above  in  four  different  ways,  by  review,  by  reference,  by  appeal, 
and  by  complaint."  If,  therefore,  the  emendators  of  our  book  had  left 
out  the  little  word,  and  said ;  "  Every  kind  of  decision  may  be  carried 
up  in  four  different  ways,  review,  reference,  appeal  and  complaint ; " 
there  would  have  been  an  end  of  the  matter ;  or  rather,  there  never 
could  have  been  a  beginning  to  the  new  doctrine.  Yet  who  can  doubt 
that  this  is  precisely  what  they  meant  to  say,  who  compares  the  two 
rules,  and  remembers,  that  our  practice,  both  before  and  since  the 
emendation,  was  precisely,  as  far  as  the  point  now  in  debate  is  con- 
cerned, the  same  as  that  of  the  Scotch  Church  ? 

The  main  dependence  of  the  advocates  of  the  new  doctrine,  is  upon 
the  language  employed  in  directing  how  an  appeal  is  to  be  prosecuted. 
It  is  argued  that  where  there  has  been  no  trial,  strictly  speaking,  in 
the  court  below,  there  can  be  no  appeal,  because  an  appeal,  is  the 
removal  of  a  cause  already  decided,  from  the  inferior  to  the  superior 
judicatory ;  secondly,  because  it  is  said  that  all  persons  who  have  sub- 
mitted to  a  trial  have  a  right  to  appeal ;  thirdly,  because  the  grounds 
of  appeal  are  stated  to  be  such  as  partiality,  the  refusal  of  testimony, 
haste  or  injustice  in  the  decision ;  fourthly,  because  the  book  directs 
that,  in  hearing  an  appeal,  the  following  steps  are  to  be  taken,  viz.,  to 
read  the  sentence,  then  the  reasons,  then  the  records  including  the  tes- 
timony, then  to  hear  first  the  original  parties,  and  afterwards  the  mem- 
bers of  the  inferior  judicatory.  If  this  argument  is  valid  in  relation 
to  appeals,  it  is  no  less  so  in  its  application  to  complaints.  For  if  an 
appeal  is  the  removal  of  a  cause  already  decided,  so  a  complaint  is 
"  another  method  by  which  a  cause  decided  in  an  inferior  judicatory 
may  be  carried  before  a  superior."  The  grounds  of  complaint  contem- 
plate "  parties  at  the  bar,"  injustice  of  the  judgment,  &c.  The  steps 
also  in  the  prosecution  of  a  complaint  are  substantially  the  same  as  in 
case  of  appeal ;  the  sentence  is  to  be  read,  then  the  reasons,  then  the 


476  CHURCH  POLITY. 

records  including  the  testimony,  then  the  parties  are  to  be  heard,  &c., 
&c.  The  only  difference  between  these  modes  of  redress  are  the  fol- 
lowing. First,  a  complaint  does  not  arrest  the  operation  of  a  decision 
against  which  it  is  entered ;  and,  secondly,  an  appeal  can  be  made  only 
by  an  aggrieved  party ;  whereas  a  complaint  can  be  made  by  any 
member  of  the  court  who  disapproves  of  the  decision.  They  do  not 
differ  at  all  as  to  the  kind  of  decisions  against  which  they  are  availa- 
ble. The  same  mode  of  arguing  is  equally  applicable  to  the  case  of 
references.  For  a  reference  is  defined  to  be  a  judicial  representation 
of  a  case  not  yet  decided.  The  superior  judicatory,  it  is  said,  may 
remit  the  cause  referred ;  and  the  inferior  court  is  directed,  in  cases  of 
reference,  to  send  up  all  the  testimony,  in  order  that  the  higher  court 
may  consider  and  decide  the  case.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  we 
cannot,  without  the  greatest  inconsistency,  stop  half  way  in  this  matter. 
If  the  use  of  the  words  cause,  parties,  testimony,  sentence,  &c.,  under 
the  head  of  appeals,  shows  that  they  must  be  confined  to  judicial  cases; 
it  proves  the  same  with  regard  to  complaints  and  references  ;  and  our 
whole  system  of  government  is  overturned. 

The  fallacy  of  the  above  method  of  reasoning  will  appear  from  the 
following  remarks.  In  the  first  place,  these  technical  terms  are  to  be 
understood,  not  according  to  their  use  in  civil  courts,  but  according  to 
our  own  ecclesiastical  usage.  Our  bodies  are  called  courts;  their  deci- 
sions are  called  judgments ;  the  matters  brought  before  them  are  called 
cases.  Are  we  to  infer  from  this,  as  has  been  done  by  the  New  School 
lawyers  and  brethren,  that  they  have  nothing  but  judicial  powers;  that 
they  are  mere  bodies  for  the  administration  of  justice?  The  constitution 
says,  indeed,  that  they  are  charged  with  the  government  of  the  churches, 
yet  as  civil  courts  have  nothing  to  do  with  governing,  it  is  insisted  upon 
that  ours  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  This  arguing  from  technical 
terms,  and  giving  them  a  sense  foreign  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  our  eccle- 
siastical system,  can  produce  nothing  but  confusion  and  embarrassment. 

In  the  second  place,  our  rules  were  drawn  up  with  special  reference 
to  that  class  of  cases  which  is  of  most  frequent  occurrence,  and  hence 
the  language  employed  is  adapted  to  such  cases.  Are  we  to  infer, 
however,  from  the  fact  that  the  book  directs  the  inferior  judicatory,  in 
cases  of  reference,  to  send  up  the  testimony,  that  no  case  can  be  referred 
but  one  in  which  there  is  testimony  to  be  presented  ?  Yet  this  is  the 
argument  upon  which  so  much  stress  is  laid.  It  is,  that  because  the 
rules,  which  relate  to  appeals,  direct  that  the  sentence  should  be  read, 
and  the  testimony  produced,  there  can  be  no  appeal  where  there  has 
not  been  a  judicial  sentence,  and  Avhere  there  is  no  testimony.  This  is 
exactly  the  argument  made  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  in  1837  by 
Dr.  Beman,  in  opposition  to  the  motion  to  cite  certain  synods  to  answer 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  477 

for  their  irregularities.  He  insisted  that  the  Assembly  should  look  at 
the  book  and  abide  by  it  to  the  letter.  But  to  "what  part  of  the  consti- 
tution did  he  refer  the  house?  Not  to  that  which  contains  the  radical 
principles  of  our  system,  which  enjoins  on  the  higher  courts  to  take 
effectual  care  that  the  constitution  is  observed,  but  to  the  rules  of  detail. 
And  sure  enough,  as  might  have  been,  expected,  these  rules  do  contem- 
plate some  specific  erroneous  decision,  and  consequently  direct  that  the 
delinquent  judicatory  should  be  cited  to  show  what  it  had  done  "  in  the 
case  in  question,"  after  which  the  whole  case  was  to  be  remitted  to  the 
said  judicatory  to  be  disposed  of  in  a  constitutional  manner.  It  was 
hence  argued  that  although  the  power  of  calling  inferior  courts  to  the 
bar,  and  seeing  that  they  conformed  to  the  constitution,  was  clearly 
recognized,  yet  the  Church  had  by  these  rules  of  detail,  effectually  tied 
her  own  hands.  A  specific  irregular  act  might  be  called  up,  and  sent 
back  for  correction ,  but  the  synods  themselves  were  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  Assembly.  They  might  cherish  what  disorders  they  pleased ; 
recognize  what  churches  or  presbyteries  they  pleased,  trample  on  the 
constitution  as  they  pleased,  the  Assembly  could  do  nothing  but  correct 
specific  acts  in  detail.  This  argument  is  just  as  good  as  that  which  is 
now  urged  about  appeals  or  complaints.  The  argument  is,  that  the 
rules  of  process  limit  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  those  particular  cases, 
in  which  every  one  of  the  rules  can  be  applied. 

In  the  third  place  it  is  a  fallacy  running  through  this  argument  that 
there  can  be  no  judicial  investigation  of  anything  but  a  judicial  act. 
An  appeal  or  complaint  is  indeed  a  judicial  process.  Hence  it  is  re- 
ferred to  the  judicial  committee ;  and  the  members  of  the  court  are 
warned,  when  it  comes  on  for  decision,  that  they  are  about  to  sit  in 
their  judicial  capacity.  This,  however,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  act  appealed  from.  The  higher  court  is  called  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  constitutionality,  wisdom,  or  justice  of  a  particular  act  of 
the  court  below ;  it  matters  not  whether  that  act  itself  were  judicial  or 
executive.  If  anybody  was  injured  by  it,  he  has  a  right  to  appeal  from 
it,  and  have  his  brethren  judge  of  its  propriety.  That  our  constitution 
contemplated  such  appeals  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  provides  that 
an  appeal  shall  suspend  the  operation  of  the  decision  appealed  from, 
except  it  be  a  sentence  of  suspension,  excommunication,  or  deposition. 
This  is  just  as  much  as  to  say,  except  in  judicial  cases ;  for  suspension, 
excommunication,  and  deposition  are  the  only  sentences,  worth  naming, 
which  our  courts  are  competent  to  pass.  If  then  these  are  excepted 
from  arrest  in  their  operation  by  an  appeal,  all  are  excepted,  unless  an 
appeal  may  lie  from  other  than  strictly  judicial  decisions.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  such  decisions  form  but  one  class  of  those  acts  from 
which  an  appeal  can  be  taken. 


478  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Finally,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  all  the  requisitions  of  the  book  may- 
be fully  complied  with  in  cases  of  appeals  from  executive  acts,  then 
there  is  an  end  of  the  argument ;  as  the  whole  argument  rests  on  the 
Bupposed  incompatibility  of  those  rules  with  such  appeals.  Let  us 
take  for  illustration  either  of  the  appeals  presented  in  1835  by  Thomas 
Bradford  and  others.  The  presbytery  had  divided  the  Fifth  Church  of 
Philadelphia  against  its  will,  erecting  two  new  churches,  and  giving  a 
name  to  neither.  The  church  felt  itself  aggrieved ;  it  believed  that  not 
only  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  congregation,  but  the  title  to  the  proper- 
ty Avas  injuriously  affected  by  the  decision.  They  had  therefore  the  right 
not  only  to  have  it  reviewed,  but  arrested.  They  accordingly  ap- 
pealed. The  papers  were  referred  to  the  judicial  committee,  and  found 
to  be  in  order.  When  the  case  was  to  be  tried,  the  Assembly  was 
duly  warned  that  it  was  about  to  sit  in  a  judicial  capacity,  to  decide  on 
the  unconstitutionality  and  justice  of  that  act  of  the  presbytery.  The 
first  step  was  to  read  the  sentence,  or  decision  appealed  from ;  the  second 
to  read  the  reasons  of  the  apjjeal.  The  third  to  read  the  record  in  the 
case,  including  the  testimony.  The  testimony  in  this  case  was  all  the 
evidence  presented  to  the  presbytery  to  prove  the  opposition  of  the 
church  to  the  division.  Fourth  step  was  to  hear  the  original  parties. 
The  only  parties  in  the  case  were  the  presbytery  who  had  done  the 
wrong  and  the  church  that  sufiered  it.  They  were  accordingly  heard. 
The  fifth  step,  according  to  the  book,  would  be  to  hear  the  members  of 
the  inferior  judicatory.  This  direction  was  complied  with  in  taking 
the  fourth  step,  the  presbytery  being  one  of  the  parties.  Thus  every 
direction  of  the  book  was  complied  with,  in  this,  as  in  a  hundred  simi- 
lar cases  of  appeal  from  executive  acts.  It  would  be  mere  trifling  to 
say  that  the  directions  were  not  all  followed,  because  there  were  not 
two  original  parties  distinct  from  the  presbytery.  There  never  are 
such  parties,  even  in  judicial  cases,  when  the  ground  of  prosecution  is 
common  fame.  Besides,  had  this  appeal  been  carried  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  the  synod,  and  there  decided  against  the  appellants,  then  the 
original  parties  in  this  case  would  have  been  the  church  and  the  pres- 
bytery, and  the  members  of  the  synod,  the  members  of  the  inferior 
judicatory  whom  the  book  directs  to  be  heard  in  the  fifth  step  of  the 
trial.  Thus  the  whole  rule  would  have  been  complied  with  to  the  let- 
ter.*    There  is,  therefore,  no  foundation  in  our  constitution  for  this 

*  It  is  perhaps  to  be  regretted  that  the  inferior  judicatory  should  ever  be  regard- 
ed, in  cases  of  complaint  or  appeal,  as  a  party.  This,  however,  is  a  designation 
which  the  judicatory  bears  as  much  when  the  sentence  appealed  from  is  a  judicial, 
as  when  It  is  an  executive  act.  If  a  minister  is  accused  by  any  particular  person 
of  an  offence  before  his  presbytery  and  is  condemned,  should  he  appeal,  the  accu- 
ser and  the  accused  are  properly  the  parties,  when  the  case  comes  before  the  sy- 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  479 

new  doctrine.  Every  letter  of  the  rules  may  be,  and  has  been  fully 
complied  with  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  where  the  decision  appealed  from 
was  merely  an  executive  act. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  it  is  very  desirable  to  have  appeals 
confined  if  possible  to  strictly  judicial  cases ;  that  it  is  unreasonable 
that  the  executive  acts  of  a  body  should  be  arrested  by  any  dissatisfied 
member.  This  objection,  however,  overlooks  the  fact  that  no  merely 
dissatisfied  member  has  a  right  to  appeal.  That  remedy  is  expressly 
confined  to  a  person  or  persons  directly  afiected  by  a  decision.  If  a 
minister  is  tried  before  his  presbytery  for  an  offence  and  condemned,  if 
he  does  not  choose  to  appeal,  no  dissatisfied  member  can  do  it.  And 
if  he  is  acquitted,  no  member  of  the  court,  however  he  may  disapprove 
of  the  decision,  can  appeal ;  his  remedy  is  to  complain.  But  if  a  pres- 
bytery dismiss  a  pastor,  against  his  will,  from  his  charge,  as  he  is  dii'ect- 
ly  affected  by  the  act,  he  may  appeal  from  it ;  or  if  they  divide  a 
church,  the  church  may  appeal.  The  right  of  appeal  is  limited,  there- 
fore, not  to  a.  particular  class  of  decisions,  but  to  a  particular  class  of 
persons,  viz.:  to  those  who  are  injuriously  affected  by  the  decision. 

We  have,  however,  acted  long  enough  upon  the  defensive.  We 
shall  proceed  to  show  that  this  new  doctrine,  especially  if  applied  to 
complaints  as  well  as  appeals,  (and  we  have  seen  that  the  two  cannot 
in  this  matter  be  consistently  separated,)  is  subversive  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  Presbyterianism,  and  inconsistent  with  the  uni- 
form practice  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  radical  principle  of  our  system 
"  that  a  larger  part  of  the  Church,  or  a  representation  of  it,  should 
govern  a  smaller,  or  determine  matters  of  controversy  which  arise 
therein."  It  is  in  virtue  of  this  principle  that  every  man  who  is  ag- 
grieved or  injured  by  a  decision  of  a  lower  court  has  the  right  to  seek 
redress  in  a  higher.  He  has  the  right  to  bring  the  matter  up  himself, 
and  is  not  dependent  on  the  majority  of  the  body,  whether  it  shall 
come  up  or  not.  It  is  further  a  fundamental  principle  of  our  system 
that  any  thing  which  has  been  unconstitutionally  or  injuriously  done  in 
a  lower  court,  whether  it  affect  an  individual  or  not,  may  be  corrected 
by  a  higher  court.  This  is  of  the  essence  of  Presbyterianism.  It  is 
involved  in  the  declaration  that  the  Church  is  to  be  governed  not  only 
by  congregational  and  presbyterial,  but  also  by  synodical  assemblies  ; 
and  more  expressly  in  the  declaration  that  synods  have  authority  "  to 

nod ;  and  the  presbytery  is  not  properly  a  party.  But  if  the  prosecution  is  on  the 
ground  of  common  fame,  then  as  far  as  there  are  original  parties  at  all,  they  are 
the  accused  and  the  presbytery  from  whose  sentence  he  appeals.  Whatever  im- 
propriety there  may  be  in  calling  the  inferior  court  a  party,  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  present  question.  The  court  is  no  more  a  party  in  cases  of  appeal,  when 
its  decision  was  executive,  than  when  it  was  judicial. 


480  CHUECH  POLITY. 

redress  whatever  has  been  done  by  presbyteries  contraiy  to  order."  It 
is  evident  that  any  interpretation  of  words  and  phrases  occurring  in 
rules  regulating  details  in  the  administration  of  discipline,  which 
comes  into  conflict  with  these  radical  principles  of  our  system,  must  be 
rejected  as  false  and  unwarranted.  The  new  doctrine  is  liable  to  this 
fatal  objection.  It  effectually  prevents  the  exercise  of  control  on  the 
part  of  the  higher  courts,  and  renders  the  lower  judicatories  indepen- 
dent as  to  all  their  executive  acts,  which  includes  the  larger  and  per- 
haps most  important  part  of  their  proceedings.  A  presbytery  may 
trample  on  the  constitution  with  impunity ;  it  may  admit  congrega- 
tionalists  to  sit  as  ruling  elders ;  it  may  receive  ministers  without  re- 
quiring them  to  adopt  our  standards;  it  may  dismiss  a  pastor  against 
his  own  will  and  that  of  his  people ;  it  may,  for  party  purposes,  divide 
a  congregation  contrary  to  its  wishes,  or  instal  a  pastor  over  them  in 
spite  of  their  remonstrances  ;  and  for  these  and  a  multitude  of  similar 
cases  there  is  no  redress,  if  the  right  to  complain  and  appeal  is  to  be 
confined  to  judicial  cases.  The  review  of  records  affords  no  remedy  at 
all  in  nine  out  of  ten  of  such  instances.  The  records  contain  a  bare 
statement  of  the  facts,  that  such  a  man  was  received,  such  a  pastor  dis- 
missed, such  an  one  installed,  or  such  a  congregation  divided,  but 
whether  these  acts  were  constitutionally  performed,  they  give  no  means 
of  judging.  They  afford,  therefore,  nothing  on  which  the  higher  court 
can  lay  hold.  Besides,  by  withholding  their  records,  it  would  be  in 
the  power  of  the  inferior  judicatory  to  prevent  all  knowledge^  of  their 
irregularities,  even  in  those  few  cases  in  which  the  Minutes  might  dis- 
close them. 

It  may  be  said  that  fama  clamosa  affords  ground  for  calling  the 
offending  judicatory  to  an  account.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  a 
remedy  which  applies  only  in  extreme  cases.  And,  in  the  second,  this 
would  be  doing  by  indirection  what  ought  to  be  done  decently  and  in 
order.  A  minority  grieved  by  the  unconstitutional  or  injurious  acts 
of  the  majority,  not  having  the  right  to  make  an  orderly  representation 
of  the  case  to  the  higher  court,  is  driven  to  make  a  clamour  about  it, 
in  order  to  attract  their  attention.  This  surely  is  not  Presbyterianism. 
And  besides,  the  citation  and  trial  of  judicatories  on  the  ground  of 
common  fame,  is  the  most  invidious,  the  most  cumbrous,  and  the  least 
effectual  of  all  methods  for  the  correction  of  abuses.  If,  therefore,  the 
right  of  appeal  and  complaint  be  taken  away,  except  in  judicial  cases, 
there  is  no  remedy  for  the  largest  and  most  important  class  of  uncon- 
stitutional or  unjust  acts  of  ecclesiastical  bodies.  Our  New  School 
brethren  have  never  brought  forward  a  principle  more  completely  sub- 
versive of  Presbyterian  government  than  the  new  doctrine,  in  its  full 
extent,  would  certainly  be.    It  would  effectually  prevent  the  legitimate 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  481 

operation  of  our  system ;  it  would  place  the  constitution,  order,  and 
purity  of  the  Church  at  the  mercy  of  any  one  presbytery,  and  leave 
minorities  completely  in  the  hands  of  majorities. 

It  may  be  said  that  these  remarks  apply  only  to  that  form  of  the  new 
doctrine  which  excludes  complaints,  no  less  than  appeals,  in  all  except 
judicial  cases.  We  have  already  admitted  that  the  evil  is  far  less 
sweeping,  if  the  right  of  complaining  against  unconstitutional  or  inju- 
rious executive  acts  be  allowed  to  remain.  But  the  right  of  appeal  is 
no  less  sacred  than  that  of  complaint.  The  constitution  places  them  on 
the  same  ground,  as  far  as  the  present  subject  of  debate  is  concerned. 
The  Assembly  has  no  more  authority  to  take  away  the  one,  than  it  has 
to  take  away  the  other.  The  argument  which  has  been  applied  to 
justify  the  denial  of  the  right  to  appeal,  except  in  judicial  cases,  ap- 
plies in  all  its  force  to  complaints.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  show  what 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  full  assertion  of  the  new  doctrine.  Besides, 
the  evil  arising  from  denying  the  right  of  appeal  where  the  constitu- 
tion allows  it,  is  no  less  real  and  grievous,  though  less  extensive  than 
when  the  denial  is  extended  to  complaints.  A  man  dismissed  from  his 
charge,  a  congregation  divided,  or  over  whom  a  pastor  has  been  in- 
stalled against  its  consent,  have  a  right  not  merely  to  have  these  acts 
reviewed,  but  their  operation  arrested.  And  it  is  often  of  the  last 
importance  that  the  effect  of  the  decision  should  be  suspended  until  a 
final  determination  can  be  had.  The  reversal  of  a  presbyterial  decision 
to  divide  a  congregation,  after  it  had  actually  been  organized  for  nearly 
a  year,  into  two  parts,  would  often  aggravate  instead  of  healing  the 
difiiculty.  And  so  in  a  multitude  of  other  cases,  of  which  abundant 
examples  might  be  cited  from  the  Minutes.  This  new  doctrine,  there- 
fore, is  inconsistent  with  the  radical  principles  of  Presbyterianism,  and 
its  full  operation  effectually  subverts  our  whole  form  of  government; 
and  even  in  its  restricted  application  to  appeals,  it  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  constitutional  rights  of  aggrieved  parties,  and  productive  of 
much  injustice  and  hardship. 

This  doctrine  is  at  variance  also  with  the  undeviating  practice  of  our 
own  and  all  other  Presbyterian  Churches.  This  of  itself  is  a  fatal  ob- 
jection to  any  new  doctrine.  The  fact  that  we  have  been  going  on  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  all  other  Presbyterian  bodies,  for  a  hun- 
dred and  twenty  years,  interpreting  and  administering  our  constitution 
in  a  certain  Vay,  is  answer  enough  to  any  man  who  comes  forward 
with  a  new  doctrine,  extracted  by  legal  subtlety  from  the  technicalities 
of  the  constitution.  The  words  of  our  book  have  the  sense  which  they 
were  intended  to  bear ;  and  they  were  intended  to  bear  the  sense  in  which 
its  authors  and  administrators  have  ever  understood  and  applied  them. 
If  we  depart  from  this  rule  of  construction  we  might  as  well  have  no 
31 


482  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

constitution  at  all.  Stability  is  one  of  the  primary  requisites  of  good 
government.  And  hence  it  is  a  great  evil  that  any  long-established 
principle  should  be  unsettled  by  some  novel  interpretation  of  our 
fundamental  laws.  That  the  practice  of  our  Church  has  been  uni- 
form on  this  subject,  is  admitted.  It  is  maintained,  however,  that  this 
usage,  as  far  as  concerns  the  period  anterior  to  the  revision  of  the  con- 
stitution in  1821,  is  of  no  authority,  and  that  the  time  which  has  since 
elapsed  is  too  short  to  give  to  usage  any  force  in  opposition  to  what 
is  supposed  to  be  the  sense  of  the  constitution.  This  principle  is,  no 
doubt,  correct.  Usage  is  not  of  authority  in  opposition  to  a  written 
constitution.  But  it  is  of  the  greatest  authority  in  a  question  of  inter- 
pretation. It  cannot  be  rightfully  disregarded,  unless  the  constitution 
be  clearly  in  opposition  to  the  usage.  We  have  already  seen  that 
there  is  no  such  opposition  in  the  present  case ;  that  the  uniform  practice 
of  the  Church  is  in  harmony  with  our  constitutional  rules.  This  being 
the  case,  the  argument  from  usage  is  of  course  conclusive. 

The  assumption  that  the  amendments  adopted  in  1821  were  designed 
to  abrogate  the  old  common  law  of  the  Church  is  a  very  extraordinary 
one.  This  common  law  had  grown  up  in  this  country  and  in  Scotland, 
under  the  brief  and  aphoristic  statements  of  Presbyterian  principles 
contained  in  the  Westminster  Directory.  These  statements  were  incor- 
porated in  the  constitution  of  1788,  and  are  retained  in  the  amended 
^constitution  of  1821.  If  from  that  time  they  were  to  be  diiferently 
understood,  it  is  strange  that  they  were  not  so  modified  as  to  give  some 
intimation  of  the  fact.  But  how  is  it  known  that  these  amendments 
were  intended  to  abrogate  the  old  common  law  of  the  Church  ?  The 
authors  of  the  amendments  declare,  some  in  one  way  and  some  in  an- 
other, that  they  had  no  such  intention  The  Church  certainly  intended 
no  such  change,  because  it  went  on  acting  under  the  amended  constitu- 
tion precisely  as  it  had  acted  before.  It  was  not  until  fifteen  years 
after  the  amendments  were  made,  that  any  one  discovered  what  they 
were  intended  to  accomplish.  It  is  evident  that  such  a  discovery  can- 
not be  entitled  to  much  consideration. 

To  show  how  uniform  has  been  the  usage  of  our  Church  on  this  sub- 
ject, even  since  1821,  we  shall  proceed  to  cite  some  of  the  examples  to 
be  found  on  our  Minutes ;  and  for  reasons  already  stated,  we  shall  not 
confine  these  examples  to  cases  of  appeals.  In  1822,  the  Assembly 
entertained  and  decided  an  appeal  from  the  Synod  of  Ohio,  relating  to 
the  validity  of  the  election  of  certain  elders.  Minutes,  p.  18  and  21. 
In  1827,  Dr.  Green  and  others  presented  a  complaint  against  a  decision 
of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  which  turned  on  the  question,  Whether 
the  same  person  could  properly  hold  the  office  of  ruling  elder  in  two 
churches  at  the  same  time?    The  decision  of  the  synod  was  affirmed,  p. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  483 

117.  Two  other  complaints  of  a  similar  character  were  decided  th« 
same  year,  p.  125,  130,  and  132.  In  1828,  an  appeal  was  received  from 
some  of  the  pew-holders  of  the  first  Church  in  Troy,  against  a  decision 
of  the  Synod  of  Albany,  p.  228 ;  and  a  complaint  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia  against  the  Presbytery  of  Columbia,  relating  to  the 
licensure  of  Mr.  Shaffer,  p.  234.  In  1829,  two  complaints  were  re- 
ceived against  decisions  which  were  not  judicial.  In  1830,  an  appeal 
was  presented  from  the  Church  in  Bergen  from  a  decision  of  the  Synod 
of  Genesee,  which,  however,  was  dismissed  for  want  of  a  date  and  other 
irregularities  in  the  mode  of  its  prosecution,  p.  9  and  17.  In  1831,  the 
complaint  of  the  minority  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Barnes,  was  presented ;  and  in  1832,  a  complaint  against  a  deci- 
sion of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  relating  to  called  meetings  of  synod,  p. 
315.  In  1832,  there  appear  to  have  been  five,  if  not  six,  complaints  of 
the  same  character  presented  to  the  Assembly,  p.  476.  In  1834,  the 
Assembly  received  and  decided  the  appeal  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  against  the  decision  of  the  synod,  before  referred  to.  The 
same  year  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  referred  for  adjudication  the  ap- 
peal and  complaint  of  the  Fifth  Church  of  Philadelphia  relative  to  the 
call  of  Dr.  Beman^  p.  8.  In  1835,  the  Assembly  received  and  decided 
the  appeal  of  Thomas  Bradford  and  others  from  a  decision  of  the 
Second  Presbytery  dividing  their  church,  p.  20 ;  and  also  an  appeal 
and  complaint  of  Thomas  Bradford  and  others  relating  to  the  installa- 
tion of  Mr.  Duffield,  when  the  acts  of  the  presbytery  in  relation  thereto 
were  reversed,  p.  33.  Immediately  under  the  record  of  this  latter  de- 
cision we  find  the  following  minute,  viz, :  "  The  Assembly  took  up  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  the  records  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
and  the  records  were  approved  with  the  following  exception,  viz. :  In 
regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  said  Synod  concerning  appeals,  complaints 
and  protests,  and  the  application  of  this  doctrine,  about  which  the  As- 
sembly express  no  opinion."  There  was  the  less  necessity  for  express- 
ing an  opinion  in  words,  as  they  had  just  expressed  one  so  intelligibly, 
by  acting  in  direct  opposition  to  that  doctrine.  In  1836,  we  find 
several  examples  of  the  same  kind,  as,  for  instance,  the  appeal  and 
complaint  of  the  Second  Presbytery  against  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
for  dissolving  them  as  a  presbytery,  p.  273.  In  1837,  there  was  an  ap- 
peal presented  by  Rev.  A.  G.  Morss  and  others,  of  the  congregation  of 
Frankford,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  related  to  a  judicial  deci- 
sion, p.  417  and  480.  In  1838,  there  was  an  unusual  number  of  such 
complaints  and  appeals ;  for  example,  a  complaint  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Wilmington  ;  a  protest  and  complaint  by  R.  J.  Breckinridge  and  others 
against  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  for  their  decision  relating  to  the 
Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia ;  an  appeal  and  complaint  of  J.  Camp- 


484  CHUBCH  POLITY. 

bell  and  others  against  a  decision  of  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey ;  an  ap- 
peal and  complaint  of  certain  persons  claiming  to  be  the  Church  of  St. 
Charles,  against  a  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Missouri,  that  they  were  not 
the  said  church ;  which  appeal  was  sustained,  and  the  proceedings  of 
the  synod  in  the  case  were  set  aside.  See  pages  11,  13,  14,  15,  16,  19, 
23,  and  39  of  the  Minutes. 

There  is  not  then,  upon  our  Minutes,  a  single  case  of  an  appeal  or 
complaint,  which  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  refer  to  a 
judicial  sentence.  We  have  been  going  on  for  a  hundred  and  twenty 
years  entertaining  such  appeals  without  any  one  dreaming  of  their 
being  irregular.  This  has  been  done  as  freely  since,  as  before,  the  re- 
vision of  the  constitution,  by  those  who  proposed  and  by  those  who 
adopted  the  amendments.  If  after  all  this  a  new  and  opposite  doctrine 
is  to  be  introduced,  there  never  can  be  any  stability  or  security  with 
regard  to  any  principle  of  Presbyterian  Church  government.  If  pre- 
cedents so  long  continued,  so  numerous,  so  highly  sanctioned,  are  to  be 
set  aside,  the  Church  will  demand  something  more  than  A'erbal  criti- 
cism, or  ingenious  inferences  from  collated  passages.  Nothing  short  of 
a  plain  and  intelligible  denial  of  the  right  to  complain  of  oppressive 
and  unconstitutional  acts ;  or  to  appeal  from  unrighteous  decisions, 
though  they  may  not  be  judicial,  will  induce  Presbyterians  to  forego  a 
privilege  which  they  have  enjoyed  from  the  very  foundation  of  their 
Church.  No  one  pretends  that  there  is  any  such  denial  to  be  found  in 
our  amended  constitution.  The  prohibition  is  a  mere  inference  from 
the  technicalities  of  the  rules  of  process.  We  think,  however,  that  we 
have  shown  that  there  is  no  such  opposition  between  our  rules  of  pro- 
cess and  the  radical  principles  of  our  system  ;  that  every  one  of  those 
rules  may  be  observed  to  the  very  letter,  in  cases  of  appeal  or  com- 
plaint against  executive  acts,  and  consequently  that  there  is  no  founda- 
tion in  the  constitution  for  this  new  doctrine.  If  it  is  to  be  applied  to 
appeals,  we  see  not  how  any  one  can  fail  to  apply  it  to  complaints  and 
references,  and  if  so  ajoplied,  all  must  acknowledge  that  our  system  of 
government  would  be  completely  overturned.  The  right  of  appeal 
is  already  restricted  within  very  harrow  limits.  It  is  not  the  privilege 
of  any  member  of  the  court.  It  belongs  exclusively  to  an  aggrieved 
party ;  to  those  whose  character  or  interests  are  immediately  concerned 
in  the  decision.  And  to  all  such  it  is  a  right  guaranteed  by  the  con- 
stitution and  by  the  undeviating  practice  of  the  Church. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  485 

b.  Review  of  a  Decision  that  Appeals  cannot  lie  except  in  Judicial  cases.  [*] 
[Book  of  Discipline,  chap,  vii.,  par.  ii.,  and  sec.  iii.,  par.  ii. — Digest  of  1873,  p.  574.] 

This  was  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  synod  refusing  to  enter- 
tain Dr.  Skinner's  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  presbytery,  dissolving 
his  pastoral  relations  to  the  Church  in  Lexington.  After  hearing  the 
parties,  viz..  Dr.  Skinner  and  the  commissioners  of  the  synod,  the  vote 
was  taken  by  calling  the  roll,  for  sustaining  the  appeal  42 ;  for  not 
sustaining  59.     So  the  appeal  was  not  sustained. 

The  accounts  of  the  debate  on  this  case  published  in  the  papers,  are 
so  brief,  as  to  leave  us  at  a  loss  as  to  the  grounds  of  this  decision.  In 
one  paper  (New  York  Observer,  June  lOthj,  it  is  said,  the  synod  "re- 
fused to  entertain  the  appeal,  as  the  presbytery  had  acted  on  his  own 
request,  and  that  of  the  people"  in  dissolving  the  pastoral  relation 
between  Dr.  Skinner  and  the  Lexington  Church.  If  this  were  the 
ground  of  the  synod's  action,  then  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  does 
nothing  more  than  sanction  the  correctness  of  their  judgment.  It  in- 
volves no  constitutional  principle.  But  in  other  places  it  is  stated  that 
the  synod  refused  to  entertain  the  appeal  in  question,  because  the  de- 
cision of  the  presbytery  was  an  executive  act,  and  not  a  judicial  sen- 
tence. If  this  was  the  ground  assumed  by  the  synod,  then  the  action 
of  the  Assembly  would  seem  to  sanction  the  principle  that  no  appeal 
can  lie  except  in  strictly  judicial  cases.  AVe  j)resume  this  is  the  correct 
statement  of  the  case,  both  from  the  drift  of  the  reports  in  the  news- 
papers, and  from  the  fact  that  the  former  reason,  though  a  very  good 
one  for  refusing  to  sustain  Dr.  Skinner's  appeal  from  the  action  of  his 
Presbytery,  was  no  reason  for  refusing  to  entertain  it. 

Though  this  is  so,  we  are  slow  to  believe  that  the  Assembly  delibe- 
rately intended  to  sanction  the  doctrine  that  appeals  are  a  remedy  con- 
fined to  strictly  judicial  cases.  A  member  of  the  house  informs  us 
that  several  members  who  voted  with  the  majority,  told  him  that  the 
only  point  they  intended  to  decide  by  their  vote  was,  that  Dr.  Skinner 
ought  not  to  be  restored  to  his  relation  as  pastor  of  the  Lexington 
Church,  that  they  did  not  mean  to  sanction  the  general  principle  as  to 
appeals.  We  see  also  in  the  list  of  those  who  voted  to  sustain  the 
action  of  the  synod,  the  names  of  brethren  who  we  know  do  not  hold, 
unless  their  opinions  have  been  suddenly  changed,  tlie  doctrine  that 
appeals  can  lie  only  in  judicial  cases.  We  ti'ust  that  this  decision, 
made  under  such  circumstances,  may  not  be  pleaded  as  authority  for 
that  doctrine.     As  this  is  a  subject  which  has  been  repeatedly  dis- 

[*  From  article  on  "  The  General  Assembly;^'  topic;  "Dr.  Skinner's  Appeal  from 
the  Decision  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  ;"  Princeton  Review,  1848,  p.  416.] 


486  CHURCH  POLITY. 

cussed  in  this  journal,  we  shall  not  trouble  our  readers  with  any  ex- 
tended argument  on  it  now.  We  beg  leave  merely  to  submit  the  fol- 
lowing remarks : 

It  must  be  allowed  to  be  a  great  evil  when  the  action  of  the  Assem- 
bly is  inconstant  and  conti'adictory  on  important  constitutional  princi- 
ples. Such  inconsistency  not  only  tends  of  necessity  to  impair  confi- 
dence, but  it  is  in  itself  a  very  serious  evil.  All  courts  are  governed, 
and  should,  to  a  great  extent,  be  governed  by  precedent.  Long-estab- 
lished usage  has  the  authority  of  law.  People  have  the  right  to  de- 
pend upon  it.  It  works  manifest  injustice,  when  a  party  avails  him- 
self of  a  remedy,  which  a  court  for  years  and  generations  has  recog- 
nized as  appropriate,  and  he  is  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  by  a  new 
construction  of  the  constitution,  refused  a  hearing  because  he  has  put 
his  case  in  a  wrong  form.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact,  that  the  highest 
judicatory  of  our  Church,  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  usage  of 
other  Presbyterian  Churches,  has  for  a  hundred  years  uniformly  re- 
cognized the  right  of  appeal  in  an  aggrieved  party,  in  any  case, 
whether  judicial  or  executive.  There  is,  as  far  as  we  know  or  believe, 
but  one  solitary  decision  of  the  Assembly  to  the  contrary,  and  that 
preceded  and  followed  by  a  multitude  of  cases  of  an  opposite  charac- 
ter. It  is  still  more  humiliating  and  injurious  when  we  see  men  who 
one  year  or  in  one  judicatory,  take  ground  that  an  appellant  shall  not 
be  heard  unless  the  case  be  strictly  judicial,  and  in  the  following  year 
and  on  other  occasions  quietly  entertain  such  appeals  without  a  whisper 
of  disapprobation.  The  only  way  to  avoid  these  evils,  to  maintain  the 
dignity  and  authority  of  the  Assembly,  and  to  deal  justly  with  those 
who  appear  at  its  bar,  is  to  adhere  rigidly  to  the  established  interpreta- 
tion of  the  constitution. 

But  if  this  new  construction  is  against  all  precedent,  it  is,  as  it  seems 
to  us,  no  less  clearly  against  the  express  language  and  obvious  intent 
of  the  constitution.  "  Every  kind  of  decision,"  it  is  said,  "  which  is 
formed  in  any  Church  judicatory,  except  the  highest,  is  subject  to  the 
review  of  a  superior  judicatory,  and  may  be  carried  before  it  in  one  or 
the  other  of  the  four  following  ways."  This  cannot  mean,  that  one 
kind  of  decisions  can  be  carried  up  in  one  way,  and  another  kind  in 
another ;  for  it  is  admitted  that  every  kind  may  be  brought  up  by  re- 
view of  records,  by  reference,  and  by  complaint ;  and,  therefore,  the 
passage  must  mean  that  the  several  remedies  enumerated,  are  applica- 
ble to  any  and  every  kind  of  error  or  injustice.  But  in  this  enumera- 
tion appeals  are  included,  and  therefore  as  any  kind  of  case  can  be 
carried  up  by  review,  reference,  or  complaint,  so  it  can  be  by  appeal. 
This  is  the  plain  meaning  of  the  passage  as  it  has  ever  been  understood 
and  acted  upon. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  487 

In  the  third  section  of  that  chapter  it  is  said,  "  An  appeal  is  the  re- 
moval of  a  cause  already  decided,  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  judica- 
tory, by  a  party  aggrieved."  In  the  language  of  our  Book  a  cause  is  a 
case,  an  act  or  decision  of  a  court,  about  which  diversity  of  opinion 
may  exist,  or  in  which  different  interests  may  be  involved.  Thus  it  is 
said  in  the  next  section,  "  Another  method  by  which  a  cause  which  has 
been  decided  by  an  inferior  judicatory  may  be  carried  before  a  supe- 
rior, is  by  complaint."  Here  a  cause  is  any  decision.  This  is  admit- 
ted, for  no  one  contends  that  complaints  are  limited  to  judicial  mat- 
ters. As  then  any  decision  or  cause  may  be  carried  up  by  complaint, 
so  also  by  appeal. 

Again  it  is  said,  "  The  necessary  operation  of  an  appeal  is,  to  suspend 
all  further  proceedings  on  the  ground  of  the  sentence  appealed  from. 
But  if  a  sentence  of  suspension,  or  excommunication  from  Church 
privileges,  or  of  deposition  from  office  be  the  sentence  appealed  from, 
it  shall  be  considered  as  in  force  until  the  appeal  shall  be  issued."  The 
plain  meaning  of  this  is,  that  an  appeal  suspends  the  operation  of  the 
decision  appealed  from,  except  in  judicial  cases.  Suspension,  excom- 
munication and  deposition  are  all  the  judicial  sentences  known  to  our 
constitution,  unless  mere  admonition  be  added,  which  last,  from  its 
nature,  does  not  admit  of  being  suspended,  for  the  vote  to  admonish  is 
the  admonition  itself.  Here  then  the  constitution  expressly  and  most 
justly  provides  that  an  appeal  suspends  the  operation  of  a  decision,  ex- 
cept in  judicial  cases,  and  therefore  by  necessary  implication,  admits 
that  there  are  other  than  judicial  sentences,  from  which  an  appeal  may 
properly  be  taken. 

Our  book  makes  two  and  only  two  distinctions  as  to  complaints  and 
appeals.  The  one  relates  to  the  persons  entitled  to  avail  themselves  of 
these  remedies,  the  other  to  their  operation.  Any  one  can  complain 
of  the  decision  of  a  church  court  who  thinks  that  decision  is  unconsti- 
tutional or  injurious.  It  is  the  right  of  any  member  of  the  judicatory 
or  of  the  Church,  to  see  that  an  evil,'a'5  he  deems  it,  may  be  examined 
into  and  redressed.  But  no  one  can  appeal  but  "an  aggrieved  party." 
If  he  does  not  see  fit  to  arrest  the  operation  of  the  decision,  no  other 
person  has  the  right  to  interfere  and  prevent  the  will  of  the  judicatory 
taking  effect.  An  appeal,  therefore,  differs  from  a  complaint,  in  being 
a  remedy  confined  to  those  who  consider  themselves  aggrieved  or  in- 
jured by  the  decision  of  the  lower  court.  It  differs  also  from  a  com- 
plaint inasmuch  as  the  latter  does  not  suspend  the  operation  of  the 
decision  complained  of.  When  however  our  book  says,  That  "  every 
kind  of  decision "  can  be  carried  up  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  court,  by 
appeal,  it  does  not  mean  every  decision,  but  what  it  says,  "every  kind 
of  decision,"  because  the  interests  of  parties  may  be  most  deeply  impli- 


488  CHURCH  POLITY. 

cated  by  every  kind  of  act  of  a  Church  court,  executive,  legislative,  or 
judicial.  Appeals,  from  their  nature,  are  confined  to  cases  of  real  or 
supposed  grievance. 

This  suggests  the  main  reason  after  all  for  insisting  on  this  right  of 
appeal.  It  is  essential  to  our  system.  Neither  ministers  or  church 
members  will  ever  submit  to  give  it  up,  and  put  themselves  entirely,  in 
the  power  of  a  session  or  presbytery.  The  denial  of  the  right  is  an  ar- 
bitrary stretch  of  power.  There  are  innumerable  cases  in  which  a 
complaint  would  afford  no  redress.  The  evil  is  consummated  before 
the  remedy  can  be  applied..  Suppose,  for  example,  a  presbytery  should 
decide  that  a  congregation  should  be  divided,  and  the  people,  or  a  por- 
tion of  them,  feel  aggrieved  by  the  decision,  what  good  would  it  do 
them  to  complain  ?  The  sentence  would  take  effect ;  two  churches 
would  be  constituted  and  organized,  and  might  both  have  pastors,  be- 
fore the  synod  could  hear  the  complaint.  It  would  be  a  mockery  to 
tell  such  people,  after  the  evil  was  all  done,  they  might  complain  about 
it.  They  have  no  redress,  unless  by  appeal  they  can  arrest  the  de- 
cision, until  the  higher  courts  have  decided  on  its  wisdom  or  justice. 
The  same  remarks  apply  to  other  cases.  A  presbytery  may  dissolve 
the  pastoral  relation  between  a  pastor  and  his  people ;  the  people  may 
consider  themselves  deeply  aggrieved.  If  they  cannot  appeal  there  is  no 
remedy.  Their  pastor  is  gone,  installed  over  another  church,  before 
their  complaint  comes  to  be  heard.  Or  the  pastor  may  be  the  ag- 
grieved party,  but  if  he  can  only  complain,  his  place  may  be  supplied 
by  another  pastor,  before  a  final  decision  is  had  on  the  question 
whether  h-e  is  to  be  removed  or  not.  How  unreasonable  and  unjust  is 
this.  A  sentence  is  allowed  to  take  full  effect,  before  the  competent 
authorities  have  decided  whether  it  shall  have  any  effect  at  all. 

We  are  persuaded  the  churches  will  never  give  up  the  right  of  ap- 
peal ;  the  right  of  arresting  the  operation  of  decisions  which  they  regard 
as  disastrous  or  unjust,  until  the  court  of  the  last  resort  has  given  its 
judgment.  It  is  a  primary  principle  of  justice  that  no  sentence  should 
take  effect,  until  all  who  have  a  right  to  sit  in  judgment  in  the  case, 
have  decided  that  it  shall  be  carried  out.  This  is  "  the  necessary  effect 
of  an  appeal,"  says  our  book.  It  is  the  righteous  provision  of  our 
standards  that  an  injury  shall  not  be  inflicted,  before  it  be  finally  de- 
termined that  it  is  unavoidable  or  deserved.  The  exceptions  made  as 
to  the  application  of  this  principle  in  judicial  cases,  is  plainly  a  sacri- 
fice of  the  individual  to  the  whole — it  is  better  that  one  person  should 
suffer  for  a  while  under  an  unrighteous  sentence,  than  that  the  whole 
Church  should  be  disgraced  and  injured  by  an  uu worthy  member  or 
minister,  until  an  appeal  can  be  carried  through  all  our  courts.  The 
fact  is  that  so  far  from  appeals  being  confined  to  judicial  cases,  those 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  489 

are  precisely  the  cases  where  they  are  of  the  least  importance.  Thej 
have  in  such  cases  no  advantage  over  a  complaint — they  do  not.  arrest 
the  operation  of  the  sentence,  and  they  do  not  bring  it  more  effectually 
under  the  review  of  the  higher  court. 

There  is  another  remark  we  cannot  refrain  from  making.  The  action 
of  the  Assembly  in  this  case  involves  a  contradiction.  They  decide  that 
an  appeal  cannot  lie  in  a  particular  case,  while  in  the  very  act  of  enter- 
taining such  an  appeal.  If  the  synod  were  right  in  refusing  to  enter- 
tain Dr.  Skinner's  appeal  from  the  presbytery,  how  could  the  Assembly 
entertain  his  appeal  from  the  synod?  If  the  case  was  not  a  judicial 
one  before  the  synod,  it  was  not  a  judicial  one  before. the  Assembly.  It 
could  not  change  its  character  by  passing  from  one  court  to  the  other. 
The  only  consistent  course  for  the  Assembly  would  have  been,  the 
moment  the  appeal  was  reported,  to  refuse  to  hear  it,  because  the  de- 
cision against  which  it  was  entered  was  not  a  judicial  sentence.  This 
was  what  the  synod  did.  But  instead  of  this,  the  Assembly  gravely 
entertain  an  appeal  from  a  non-judicial  decision  of  the^  synod,  resolve 
themselves  into  a  court,  hear  the  parties,  deliver  as  their  judgment  that 
they  have  no  right  to  do  what,  with  so  much  solemnity,  they  are  actu- 
ally engaged  in.  They  say  appeals  are  confined  to  judicial  cases,  while 
engaged  in  trying  one  from  an  executive  decision.  So  deeply  wrought 
into  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  is  the  conviction  that  the  right  of 
appeal  is  a  right  sacred  to  every  aggrieved  party,  no  matter  under  what 
form  the  grievance  may  be  inflicted.  If  Dr.  Skinner  had  no  right  to 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  presbytery,  he  had  no  right  to  appeal 
from  a  similar  decision  of  the  synod,  and  the  Assembly  in  hearing  his 
appeal  from  the  latter,  contradict  their  own  decision,  that  the  synod 
did  right  in  refusing  to  hear  him  as  an  appellant  from  the  presbytery. 

Some  of  the  special  advocates  of  liberty  of  speech  and  opinion,  are 
apt,  when  in  the  majority,  to  find  out  that  it  is  very  heinous  to  express 
any  dissent  from  the  decision  of  the  General  Assembly.  This  is  not 
Protestantism ;  nor  is  it  Christianity.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
all  due  deference  and  obedience,  for  any  member  of  the  Church  to 
express  without  reserve  his  opinions  as  to  the  wisdom  or  justice  of  any 
decision  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts.  Least  of  all  can  the  exercise  of 
this  right  be  disputed  when  the  decision  in  question  is  opposed  to  the 
established  usage  of  the  Church,  and  the  previous  decisions  of  almost 
every  Assembly  since  the  first  organization  of  that  body.  We  do  not, 
however,  believe  that  the  Assembly,  whatever  may  be  the  legal  import 
of  their  decision,  consciously  intended  to  sanction  the  new  doctrine  on 
appeals ;  we  believe  they  simply  meant  to  say  that  Dr.  Skinner  ought 
not  to  be  restored  to  the  pastoral  office  over  the  church  in  Lexington, 
— a  decision,  we  presume,  in  which  all  parties  concur. 


490  CHURCH  POLITY. 

c.  Legitimate  Grounds  of  Complaint.  [*] 

[Book  of  Discipline,  cliap.  vii.,  sec.  iv.,  par.  il— Digest  of  1873,  p.  596.— Comp. 
Form  of  Gov.  v.  iv.,  p.  204.] 

The  Rev.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  D.  D.,  presented  to  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  at  its  late  meeting,  two  papers  expressing  dissent  from 
the  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1843,  touching  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  quorum  of  presbyteries,  and  the  right  of  ruling  elders  to 
join  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  and 
proposing  that  the  synod  should  overture  the  Assembly  to  reverse 
these  decisions.  The  question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  said  papers, 
the  synod  decided  not  to  adopt ;  and  thereupon  Dr.  Breckinridge  and 
others  appealed  and  complained  to  the  next  Assembly.  The  papers 
connected  with  the  subject  having  been  referred  to  the  judicial  com- 
mittee, the  Rev.  S.  B.  Wilson,  chairman  of  that  committee,  reported 
that  they  had  examined  the  same,  and  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  deci- 
sions complained  of  were  not,  according  to  our  Book  of  Discipline, 
matters  of  appeal  or  complaint,  and  recommending  that  the  papers  be 
returned  to  the  parties  who  presented  them. 


The  adoption  of  that  report  was  advocated  by  Dr.  AVilson,  Dr. 
Hoge,  Dr.  Elliot,  Messrs.  A.  O.  Patterson  and  N.  L.  Rice ;  it  was 
opposed  by  Dr.  J.  C.  Young,  Mr.  Juukin,  Mr.  Stonestreet,  Mr.  Gilder- 
sleeve,  and  others.  After  a  protracted  discussion  the  vote  was  taken 
and  resulted  as  follows,  Ayes:  Ministers  88,  Elders  53 — total  141. 
Nays:  Ministers  21,  Elders  26 — total  47.  Thus  the  report  was  adopted,t 
and  the  Assembly  decided  that,  in  the  case  before  them,  there  was  no 
ground  on  which  either  an  appeal  or  complaint  could  rest. 

Until  within  a  comparatively  recent  period  there  was  no  diversity  as 
far  as  we  know  either  of  opinion  or  practice,  in  our  Church,  on  the 
legitimate  grounds  of  appeals  and  complaints.  At  present  it  would 
seem  that  there  are  no  less  than  four  different  views  more  or  less  preva- 
lent on  the  subject.  The  first  is  that  any  decision  of  a  lower,  may  be 
brought  up  before  a  higher  judicatory  by  either  an  appeal  or  com- 
plaint, at  the  option  of  those  concerned.  The  second  opinion  goes  to 
the  opposite  extreme,  and  denies  the  right  of  either  appeal  or  com- 
plaint except  in  cases  strictly  judicial,  i.e.  cases  in  which  there  has 
been  a  trial  and  a  sentence.     The  third  opinion  is,  that  appeals  are 

[*  From  article  on  "The  General  Assembh/;"  topic,  ''Appeal  and  Complaint 
cf  JR.  J.  Breckinridge  and  others." — Princeton  Review,  1844,  p.  424.] 

t  The  Presbyterian  reports  the  ayes  as  143,  and  nays  47.  The  Protestant  and 
Herald  makes  the  ayes  142,  rmys  45. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  491 

limited  to  judicial  cases,  but  that  complaints  may  be  entered  against 
any  decision  of  a  lower  judicatory.  The  fourth,  which  we  believe  to  be 
sustained  by  the  plain  doctrine  of  our  book,  and  the  uniform  practice 
of  our  own  and  of  all  other  Presbyterian  Churches,  is  that  taken  by 
the  Rev.  N.  L.  Rice,  and  we  presume  by  a  great  majority  of  the  late 
Assembly,  viz.  that  appeals  and  complaints  may  lie  not  against  any 
decision,  but  against  any  kind  of  decision  of  a  lower  court.  That  is,  it 
matters  not  whether  the  act  be  judicial,  legislative,  or  executive,  it  may 
be  brought  under  the  revision  of  a  higher  court  by  either  of  the 
methods  mentioned.  But  as  both  appeals  and  complaints  are  measures 
of  redress,  they  from  their  nature  suppose  a  grievance,  a  wrong  done 
or  charged,  and  therefore  cannot  possibly  lie  in  any  case  where  no 
grievance  or  wrong-doing  is  supposable. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  after  nearly  a  century  and  a  half 
of  practice,  during  which  appeals  and  complaints  have  almost  yearly 
and  often  many  in  the  same  year  been  brought  up  and  decided,  it 
should  still  be  a  matter  of  debate  Avhen  a  man  has  a  right  to  avail  him- 
self of  this  mode  of  redress.  To  the  best  of  our  knowledge  there  never 
were  two  opinions  on  this  subject  until  the  year  1834,  when  the  late 
Rev.  Mr.  Winchester,  in  defending  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  against 
the  complaint  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  took  the 
ground  that  no  appeal  or  complaint  could  lie  except  in  a  judicial  case, 
a  case  of  trial  and  censure.  At  that  time  the  synod  which  he  defend- 
ed repudiated  that  ground  of  defence,  for  they  themselves  referred  to 
that  very  Assembly  an  appeal  from  an  executive  act.  The  following 
autumn,  however,  the  synod,  under  the  lead  it  is  believed  of  some  of 
the  present  appellants,  took  the  ground,  that  no  appeal,  complaint  or 
even  protest  could  lie  except  in  cases  of  a  strictly  judicial  character. 
This,  however,  was  a  momentary  delusion,  for  the  paembers  of  that  sy- 
nod without  the  least  hesitation  or  objection  joined  in  entertaining  and 
issuing,  the  following  spring,  an  appeal  of  Thomas  Bradford  and  others 
from  a  decision  of  a  presbytery  to  divide  the  Fifth  Church  of  Philadel- 
phia, contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  It  was  found  by  the  very 
authors  and  advocates  of  the  new  doctrine  that  it  would  not  work, 
without  destroying  the  rights  of  the  people  and  subverting  the  consti- 
tution. In  the  case  of  Mr.  Bradford's  appeal,  the  church  with  which 
he  was  connected  considered  themselves  not  only  aggrieved,  but  their 
title  to  their  property  jeoparded  by  the  act  of  the  presbytery,  and  they 
had  therefore  the  clearest  right  not  only  to  have  that  act  reviewed,  but 
its  operation  arrested,  until  its  constitutionality  and  justice  were  passed 
upon  by  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church.  Neither  a  complaint 
nor  a  review  of  records  could  afford  them  redress,  fOr  it  was  neces- 
sary that  the  operation  of  the  act  of  presbytery  should  be  suspend- 


492  CHURCH  POLITY. 

ed,  or  the  evil  would  be  past  remedy.  This  doctrine  therefore  was 
abandoned,  and  in  1836  there  were  several  cases  of  appeals  or  com- 
plaints from  other  than  judicial  decisions;  another  in  1837,  and  in 
1838  no  less  than  four  or  five  cases  of  the  same  kind ;  one  a  complaint 
by  the  Presbytery  of  Wilmington,  another  a  protest  and  complaint 
of  R.  J.  Breckinridge  and  others ;  another  an  appeal  and  complaint  of 
J.  Campbell  and  others ;  another  an  appeal  and  complaint  by  certain 
persons  claiming  to  be  the  Church  of  St.  Charles,  against  a  decision  of 
the  Synod  of  Missouri,  that  they  were  not  said  church.  The  whole 
Church  therefore  went  on  after  this  new  doctrine  was  started  just  as  it 
did  before,  hearing  and  issuing  appeals  and  complaints,  as  in  duty 
bound,  from  all  kinds  of  decisions.  In  1839,  however,  a  complaint  was 
presented  to  the  Assembly  by  A.  D.  Metcalf  and  others  against  the 
Synod  of  Virginia  for  deciding  that  appeals  may  lie  in  cases  not  judi- 
cial. This  complaint  the  Assembly  sustained.  This  was  the  origin 
of  the  modified  form  of  the  new  doctrine,  viz.,  that  appeals  are  con- 
fined to  cases  of  trial  and  sentence  but  that  complaints  have  a  wider 
range,  which  is  the  third  of  the  four  opinions  on  this  subject  men- 
tioned above. 

This  decision  of  the  Assembly  is  against  all  precedent.  It  is  no 
disrespect  to  that  body  to  think  and  say  that  it  is  more  probable  that 
they  erred  in  their  judgment,  than  that  all  other  Assemblies  that  ever 
sat  in  this  country  were  mistaken.  We  beg  leave  to  refer  our  readers 
to  the  account  of  that  case  in  our  volume  for  1839,  where  they  will 
find  the  precise  doctrine  on  the  subject,  which  we  are  now  advocating, 
stated  and  defended.  We  may  be  excused  from  making  the  following 
brief  extract  from  our  history  of  the  Assembly  for  that  year.  "  Our 
constitution  says,  '  That  every  kind  of  decision  which  is  formed  in  any 
Church  judicatory,  except  the  highest,  is  subject  to  the  review  of  a  su- 
perior judicatory,  and  may  be  carried  up  in  one  or  the  other  of  the 
four  following  ways:  1.  General  review  and  control;  2.  Reference; 
3.  Appeal ;  and  4.  Complaint.'  The  question  is,  Avhat  is  the  meaning 
of  this  plain  declaration  ?  It  does  not  mean,  because  it  does  not  say, 
that  every  individual  decision,  but  every  hind  of  decision  may  be  car- 
ried in  either  of  these  four  ways.  These  difierent  forms  of  redress  con- 
template different  circumstances,  and  are  not  all  available  in  every 
particular  case.  A  reference,  for  example,  must  be  made  by  the  body 
itself,  and  not  by  an  individual  member,  but  the  body  may  refer  any 
kind  of  case.  An  appeal  supposes  an  aggrieved  party,  but  he  may  ap- 
peal from  any  kind  of  decision  which  directly  affects  himself.  A  com- 
plaint supposes  some  kind  of  impropriety  in  the  act  complained  of,  but 
it  may  be  entered  against  any  kind  of  act  alleged  to  be  improper.  So 
that  any  kind  of  decision  may  regularly  be  brought  up  in  each  of  the 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  493 

several  ways  specified  above."*  We  make  this  extract  and  reference 
to  the  article  whence  it  is  taken,  because  we  understand  that  our  pages 
were  frequently  referred  to  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  and  quoted 
in  support  of  the  right  of  the  appellants  in  the  case  then  before  the 
house.  .  It  will  be  seen  however  that  the  doctrine  taught  in  our  pages 
is  not  that  every  particular  decision  may  be  made  the  subject  of  appeal 
or  complaint,  but  that  these  modes  of  address  are  applicable  to  every 
kind  of  decision.  It  is  not  only  when  a  man  is  tried  and  suspended 
from  the  Church  or  the  ministry  that  he  has  the  right  to  appeal,  but  if 
dismissed  from  his  pastoral  charge,  against  liis  will,  or  in  any  way  per- 
sonally aggrieved  by  the  act  of  a  Church  court,  he  has  the  same  right. 

The  difference  between  an  appeal  and  complaint  is,  that  a  complaint 
does  not  arrest  the  operation  of  the  decision  against  which  it  is  en- 
tered, and  secondly,  that  an  appeal  can  be  made  only  by  an  aggrieved 
person ;  whereas  a  complaint  may  be  made  by  any  member  of  the 
court  who  considers  the  decision  unjust  or  unconstitutional.^  If  a 
presbytery  divide  a  congregation  against  its  will,  it  is  only  the  people 
who  have  a  right  to  appeal,  but  any  member  of  the  presbytery  may 
complain  of  the  act.  Our  doctrine,  therefore,  on  this  subject  is  the 
common  doctrine  of  our  Church,  viz :  that  any  kind  of  decision  of  a 
judicatory  can  thus  be  brought  under  the  review  of  a  higher  court. 
No  man  can  appeal  from  a  decision  that  does  not  affect  himself,  and 
no  man  can  complain  of  a  decision  which  is  not  wrong  either  actually 
or  supposably ;  which  is  not  charged  with  having  violated  some  rule 
of  the  constitution  or  of  justice.  As  a  complaint  is  a  mode  of  redress, 
where  there  is  no  grievance  there  can  be  no  complaint. 

We  fully  agree,  therefore,  with  Dr.  Young  and  Mr.  Stonestreet,  in 
the  main  drift  of  their  able  arguments  before  the  late  Assembly,  as  far 
as  we  can  judge  from  the  reports  given  in  the  papers.  Those  gentle- 
men argued  to  show  that  the  fact  that  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  from  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  appealed  and  against  which 
he  complained,  was  not  a  judicial  sentence,  was  no  legitimate  bar  in 
the  way  of  the  Assembly's  entertaining  the  case.|     We  differ  from 

*  Biblical  Bepertory  and  Princeton  Revievj,  for  1839,  p.  433,  [or  see  above,  p.  474, 
of  this  chap.] 

t  Repertory,  1839,  p.  435. 

X  In  looking  over  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  two  General  Assemblies 
that  met  in  Edinburgh  in  May  last,  we  noticed,  some  eiglit  or  twelve  cases  of  ap- 
peal from  decisions  of  presbyteries  to  translate  a  minister  from  one  church  to 
another,  or  to  install  him  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  a  part  of  the  people. 
In  all  such  cases  the  right  to  appeal  is  essential  to  the  protection  of  the  inter- 
ests of  those  concerned.  If  a  congregation  object  to  have  a  man  ordained  over 
them,  and  the  presbytery  decide  to  do  it,  unless  their  decision  is  arrested  by  an 
appeal,  the  man  becomes  their  pastor  no  matter  how  iniquitous  the  act  may  be. 


494  CHURCH  POLITY. 

them,  however,  in  thinking  that  that  principle  covered  or  even  touched 
the  case  before  the  house.  Had  some  ruling  elder  claimed  the  right 
in  the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore  to  join  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in 
the  ordination  of  a  minister,  and  been  refused  by  a  vote  of  that  body, 
he  could  have  complained  to  the  synod,  and  if  the  synod  sustained  the 
presbytery,  he  might  complain  to  the  General  Assembly.  Or  if  ,the 
synod  had  passed  a  resolution  prohibiting  elders  from  taking  part  in 
such  service,  any  member  of  the  body  would  have  had  a  right  to  com- 
plain. But  the  case  before  the  Assembly  was  of  a  very  different  na- 
ture, and  was  properly  dismissed. 

The  principle  just  adverted  to,  viz. :   that  a  complaint  supposes  a 

The  argument  originally  urged  by  Mr.  Winchester  was,  and  it  has  often  been  pre- 
sented since,  that  an  appeal  is  a  judicial  process,  as  is  evident  from  the  use  of  the 
words  trial,  cause,  sentence,  testimony,  &c.,  and  being  a  judicial  process  is  only 
applicable  to  a  judicial  case.  The  fallacy  of  this  argument  is,  that  it  overlooks 
the  fact  that  any  executive  act  may  become  the  subject  of  judicial  investigation. 
A  presbytery  resolves  to  divide  a  congregation,  the  people  appeal.  Then  the  pro- 
priety of  the  act  is  judicially  investigated.  You  have  the  sentence  appealed  from ; 
you  have  the  testimony  to  show  that  the  decision  was  made  and  what  were  the 
facts  in  the  case ;  you  have  the  parties,  one  affirming  and  the  other  denying  the 
propriety  of  the  decision.  Take  for ,  illustration  one  of  the  many  cases  which 
came  before  the  last  Scotch  Assembly.  The  Free  "  Assembly  took  up  the  appeal 
by  the  congregation  of  Maryburgh  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Ding- 
wall, agreeing  to  translate  the  Rev.  George  Macleod  from  Maryburgh  to  Lochbroom. 
Parties  being  called,  Mr.  Kennedy  appeared  for  the  Presbytery  of  Dingwall,  and 
Mr.  Lomond  for  the  congregation  of  Lochbroom.  There  was  no  appearance  for 
the  congregation  of  Maryburgh.  The  reasons  of  the  appeal  were  read  by  the  clerk." 
The  reasons  are  given  at  length ;  then  follows  the  pleading  of  the  parties,  and  when 
they  had  been  heard,  it  is  said,  "  The  parties  were  now  removed,"  and  the  house 
proceeded  to  give  judgment,  when  it  was  resolved  ''  to  dismiss  the  appeal,  affirm 
the  judgment,  and  order  Mr.  Macleod  to  be  translated  to  Lochbroom  with  all  con- 
venient speed."  (Edinburg  Witness  for  May  28, 1844.)  One  such  case,  and  hun- 
dreds of  the  same  kind,  might  be  cited  from  our  own  records  and  from  those  of  the 
Scottish  Church,  is  a  complete  refutation  of  the  whole  argument  in  favour  of  con- 
fining appeals  to  judicial  cases.  It  shows  that  all  the  prescriptions  of  our  book 
are  applicable  to  appeals  from  executive  acts.  We  are  the  more  anxious  to  call 
attention  to  this  point  because  we  fear  lest  it  should  be  inferred  from  the  action 
of  the  Assembly  that  the  appeal  and  complaint  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  were  dis- 
missed on  the  ground  that  the  decision  appealed  from  was  not  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  terra  a  judicial  sentence.  The  Assembly  in  their  answer  to  the  protest  of 
Dr.  Young  and  others,  place  their  decision  on  entirely  different  grounds,  and  are 
not  to  be  considered  as  in  any  way  sanctioning  the  restricted  doctrine  of  com- 
plaints and  appeals,  which  we  believe  to  be  contrary  to  the  constitution,  the 
practice,  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  Church.  We  do  not  enter  anew  on  the 
discussion  because  this  point  was  not  involved  in  the  case  before  the  Assembly, 
and  because  it  has  been  repeatedly  discussed  in  our  pages.  See  Repertory  for  1835 
and  1839. 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  495 

grievance  can  hardly  be  called  into  question.    Does  any  man  complain 

of  anything  which  he  does  not  think  wrong  or  injurious?  Does  not  the 
nature  of  the  act  imply  a  charge  against  the  body  complained  of,  that 
it  had  no  right  to  do  the  thing  in  question,  or  that  it  infringed  on  the 
rights  of  others?  Does  not  our  book  say  that  a  "complaint  is  a  repre- 
sentation," that  "a  decision  by  an  mferior  judicatory  has  been  irregu- 
larly or  unjustly  made?"  Of  course  where  there  is  no  room  for  the 
charge  of  irregularity  or  injustice  there  can  be  no  room  for  a  com- 
plaint. If  the  decision  is  not  charged  with  being  in  violation  of  any 
rule,  or  with  inflicting  any  injury  on  those  concerned,  it  is  preposterous 
to  assert  that  there  is  a  right  of  complaint.  A  body  cannot  be  sum- 
moned to  a  higher  court  for  the  exercise  of  its  acknowledged  rights,  in 
accordance  with  the  constitution,  and  in  cases  subject  to  its  own  discre- 
tion. If  a  presbytery  elects  A.  B.  instead  of  C.  D.  moderator,  no  one 
can  complain  since  the  presbytery  has  a  right  to  choose  their  own 
moderator,  and,  within  the  limits  of  the  constitution  may  choose  Avhom 
they  please.  They  may  choose  the  oldest  man  or  the  youngest  man, 
die  wisest  or  the  weakest,  and  no  man  may  call  them  to  account  because 
in  his  judgment  they  might  have  made  a  better  choice.  If  such  an 
act  is  made  a  ground  of  complaint,  it  must  be  charged  that  it  was 
irregularly  or  unjustly  or  corruptly  performed.  The  complaint  must 
rest  not  on  the  act  itself,  but  upon  the  assumption  that  it  violates  some 
rule  which  the  judicatory  was  bound  to  observe,  or  that  it  affects  un- 
justly the  rights  or  interests  of  others.  There  are  then  certain  acts 
which  are  purely  discretionary,  which  a  judicatory  have  a  perfect  right 
to  do  or  not  to  do  at  pleasure,  which  cannot  possibly  be  made  the 
ground  of  a  complaint,  unless  they  can  be  charged  as  unjust  or  ir- 
regular. 

The  only  question  then,  is,  whether  the  act  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia was  such  an  act.  To  determine  this  point,  we  have  only 
to  ask  what  the  act  was,  and  secondly,  whether  it  can  be  charged  or 
supposed  to  violate  any  rule  or  to  infringe  any  right.  As  to  the  act 
itself,  it  was  a  simple  refusal  to  adopt  an  overture.  Dr.  Breckinridge 
presented  two  memorials  condemning  in  strong  language  the  decision 
of  the  Assembly  of  1843,  as  to  the  constitution  of  a  quorum  of  presbytery, 
and  the  right  of  elders  to  join  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  ministers,  and  calling  upon  the  synod  to  overture  the  Assembly 
to  rescind  the  obnoxious  resolutions,  and  to  adopt  others  of  a  contrary 
import.  This  the  synod  refused  to  do.  Now  the  only  question  is, 
whether  a  synod  is  bound  to  adopt  any  and  every  overture  presented 
to  it ;  or  whether  any  right  is  infringed  by  their  refusing  to  do  so  ? 
This  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  correctness  or  incorrectness 
of  the  views  contained  in  the  overture.     It  may  assert  self-evident  or 


496  CHURCH  POLITY. 

acknowledged  truths,  still  it  is  a  matter  entirely  within  the  discre- 
tion of  the  body  to  receive  or  reject  it.     Because  a  synod  may  present 
overtures  to  the  Assembly,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  bound  to  do  so. 
It  may,  if  it  chooses,  call  upon  the  Assembly  to  assert  that  Calvinism 
is  true  and  Romanism  false,  but  it  cannot  be  forced  to  make  such  a 
call,  or  charged  with  acting  unjustly  or  irregularly  for  refusing  to 
make  it.     This  is  plain  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  for  such  an  over- 
ture is  a  petition,  and  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  a  body  can  be  forced 
to  petition.     It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  act  of  the  synod  was  purely 
discretionary.     It  is  equally  clear  that  the  synod's  act  violated  no  right, 
it  inflicted  no  grievance,  because  no  member  of  a  body  has  a  right  to 
make  that  body  adopt  his  sentiments,  or  if  they  hold  them,  publicly 
avow  them,  or  to  call  upon  a  higher  judicatory  to  avow  them.    If  a  man 
wishes  the  Assembly  to  avow  certain  doctrines,  let  him  make  the  re- 
quest, but  what  right  has  he  to  force  others  to  join  in  that  request,  or 
to  charge  them  with  acting  unjustly  or  irregulply  for  refusing  to  do 
so  ?     All  this  is  so  perfectly  plain  that  Dr.  Young,  and  other  advo- 
cates of  the  appeal  and  complaint,  were  forced  to  assume  that  the 
synod  had  decided  adversely  to  the  doctrine  of  the  overture.     They 
felt  the  absurdity  of  complaining  of  the  mere  refusal  to  adopt  a  cer- 
tain paper,  and  therefore  were  forced  to  assume  that  the  refusal  to 
adopt  was  an  expression  of  an  opinion  contrary  to  the  contents  of  the 
paper.    But  this  is  obviously  a  gratuitous  and  unwarranted  assumption. 
Had  the  whole  synod  agreed  with  Dr.  Brecliinridge,  and  with  every  word 
contained  in  his  overtures,  they  might,  with  perfect  consistency,  have 
rejected  them.     If  a  man  present  a  long  paper  to  a  synod,  asserting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  calling  upon  the  Assembly  to  join  in 
affirmation  of  the  doctrine,  do  they  deny  the  doctrine  because  they 
refuse  to  adopt  the  overture?     There  may  surely  be  other  reasons 
than  the  incorrectness  of  its  doctrines,  to  lead  a  synod  to  reject  such  a 
paper.     It  may  be  unnecessary,  or  uncalled  for,  or  so  obviously  true 
as  to  make  the  assertion  of  its  sentiments  by  the  body  unwise  or  unde- 
sirable.    It  is  therefore  obviously  a  false  assumption,  contrary  to  the 
very  face  of  the  record,  to  say  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  decided 
that  the  j^resence  of  ruling  elders  is  not  necessary  to  a  quorum  of 
presbytery,  or  that  elders  may  not  join  in  the  imposition  of  hands  in 
the  ordination  of  rainisters.     They  made  no  such  decision  ;  they  nei- 
ther affirmed  or  denied  any  thing,  they  simply  refused  to  adopt  Dr. 
Breckinridge's  overture,  which  cannot  be  charged  with  violating  any 
rule,  or  infringing  any  of  his  rights.     Of  course  their  action  affi)rded 
no  ground  for  appeal  or  complaint. 

That  this  is  a  correct  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Book  is  ob- 
vious if  we  ask  what  is  the  design  of  appeals  and  complaints.      They 


APPEALS  AND  COMPLAINTS.  497 

are  intended  to  redress  some  grievance  or  secure  the  censure  of  those 
who  inflicted  it.  Suppose  then  the  complaint  before  the  house  had 
been  taken  up  and  sustained,  what  would  be  the  operation  of  such  a 
vote?  One  or  the  other  of  two  things;  either  to  reverse  the  decisions 
of  the  court  below,  or  to  censure  them.  If  the  former,  then  the  synod 
would  be  required  to  rescind  their  vote  refusing  to  adopt  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's overture,  and  ordered  to  adopt  it.  Would  not  this  be  absurd  ? 
One  Assembly  order  a  synod  to  petition  another  Assembly  to  condemn 
the  act  of  a  previous  Assembly !  Or  if  sustaining  the  complaint  was 
to  amount  to  a  censure  on  the  synod,  what  were  they  to  be  censured 
for  ?  Why  for  not  joining  in  a  petition.  Is  this  not  again  absurd  ? 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  the  complaint  could  not  be  taken  up,  because  to 
sustain  it,  could  work  no  eifect  which  would  not  be  ridiculous  or  nuga- 
tory. 

Another  legitimate  ground  on  which  this  extraordinary  appeal  and 
complaint  were  opposed  was,  that  the  mere  entertaining  of  it  would 
work  a  great  injustice,  if  it  was  to  have  any  effect  at  all.  Properly 
speaking  the  complaint  would  not  have  brought  up  any  other  question 
than  this.  Did  the  synod  do  right  in  refusing  to  adopt  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's overture  ?  But  the  propriety  of  their  action  did  not  depend  on 
the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  the  sentiments  the  overture  con- 
tained. The  synod  neither  affirmed  nor  denied  any  thing  as  to  that 
point.  They  simply  refused  to  adopt.  The  truth  of  the  doctrines 
taught  in  the  overture,  therefore,  would  not  fairly  have  been  brought 
into  discussion  by  considering  the  appeal.  That  was  not  the  way  to 
bring  up  that  point,  for  the  synod  was  not  complained  of  for  having 
denied  those  doctrines,  but  for  having  refused  to  petition  the  Assembly 
to  avow  them ;  and  as  remarked  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  to  sustain 
such  a  complaint  would  not  be  to  affirm  the  doctrines  of  the  overture, 
but  to  censure  the  synod  or  to  reverse  its  vote.  But  if  the  merits  of 
the  question  were  to  be  brought  up  in  that  way  then  an  obvious  in- 
justice would  be  wrought.  For  what  was  the  question  ?  It  did  not 
relate  to  the  administration  but  to  the  meaning  of  the  constitution. 
But  with  what  colour  of  justice  could  one  of  the  largest  of  the  synods 
of  the  Church  be  debarred  from  taking  part  in  deciding  in  thesi  what 
is  the  meaning  of  the  constitution  ?  The  object  professedly  sought  was 
to  get  the  judgment  of  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  as  to  the 
principles  of  our  constitution.  Why  then  not  ask  the  whole  judi- 
catory ?  What  fair  end  could  be  answered  by  bringing  up  the  ques- 
tion in  a  form  to  exclude  from  all  participation  in  the  decision  so  large 
a  part  of  the  body  ?  They  had  no  more  prejudged  the  matter  than 
other  synods  and  other  members  of  the  the  house,  and  the  injustice  of 
excluding  them  would  have  been  flagrant. 
32 


498  CHURCH  POLITY. 

Again,  if  the  principle  on  which  this  appeal  and  complaint  were 
advocated  should  be  sanctioned,  then  any  man  in  the  Church  could  at 
any  time  force  the  General  Assembly  to  consider  any  abstract  question 
he  might  choose  to  propose.  The  control  of  the  house  over  its  own 
time  and  over  the  subjects  that  should  come  before  it,  would  be  de- 
stroyed. If  one  of  our  modern  abolitionists,  for  example,  were  to  over- 
ture a  synod  to  request  the  General  Assembly  to  declare  that  no  slave- 
holder should  be  admitted  to  Church  communion,  the  synod  would  be 
bound  to  present  the  petition,  or  be  subject  to  be  arraigned  at  the  bar 
of  the  Assembly  for  refusing  to  do  so.  And  then  the  Assembly  would 
be  bound  to  consider,  not  the  propriety  of  the  synod's  action,  but  the 
merits  of  the  question.  Thus  any  and  every  abstraction  in  theology, 
morals,  politics,  or  polity  might  be  forced  upon  the  house,  and  its  time 
consumed  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  destroyed  by  any  man  who 
chose  thus  to  trouble  his  brethren.  No  Church  court  could  act  on  this 
principle ;  and  if  our  constitution  allowed  of  such  complaints,  it  would 
work  our  ruin  or  a  change  in  a  very  short  time.  Such  were  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  urged  against  the  propriety  of  entertaining  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge's appeal  and  complaint,  as  they  are  embodied  in  the  answer 
drawn  up  by  Rev.  N.  L.  Rice,  to  the  protest  of  the  minority,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  house,  by  a  majority  of  nearly  one  hundred,  pro- 
nounced them  valid. 

d.  In  Favor  of  a  Commission  to  try  Appeals  and  Complaints.  [*] 

There  is  no  part  of  our  system  which  works  so  heavily  as  that  of 
appeals  and  complaints.  There  are  great  inconveniences  connected 
with  it.  1.  The  whole  Church  is  liable  to  be  harassed  and  occupied 
by  causes  of  no  general  importance.  Three  hundred  men  sitting  in 
Philadelphia  as  the  representatives  of  the  whole  of  oui*  Church,  may 
have  their  time  largely  occupied  in  deciding  whether  a  man  in  Georgia 
showed,  on  a  given  occasion,  six  months  ago,  a  bad  spirit.  2.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  is,  from  its  size,  an  incompetent  tribunal.  Most  persons 
would  rather  be  tried  by  twelve  men  chosen  out  of  the  Assembly  by 
lot,  than  by  the  whole  three  hundred.  3.  The  consumption  of  time  is 
intolerable.  A  judicial  case  recently  occupied  one  of  our  presbyteries 
sixty  days.  It  would  require  three  weeks'  session  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, intelligently  and  righteously  to  review  that  case.  This  is  out  of 
the  question  ;  and  hence,  4.  There  is  a  frequent  denial  of  justice.  Such 
is  the  disposition  of  the  house  to  get  rid  of  a  protracted  judicial  case, 
that  every  expedient  is  resorted  to,  to  stave  it  off. 

We  know  that  the  minds  of  many  are  directed  to  the  means  of  cor- 

[*From  article  on  "  Tha  General  Assembly  ;  "   Princeton  Review,  1853,  p.  527.] 


DECISIONS  MAY  CONFIRM  OR  REVERSE  IN  PART.        499 

reeling  these  evils,  consistently  with  our  principles.  Some  propose  to 
make  the  decisions  of  synods  final  in  all  cases  of  appeal  or  complaint 
from  the  presbyteries.  But  this  violates  our  great  principle  that  the 
whole  must  govern  the  parts,  and  that  each  part  has  a  right  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  whole.  Besides,  the  remedy  does  not  meet  the  case.  It 
is  impossible  that  our  synods  can  devote  the  time  required  to  hearing 
such  cases.  We  think  we  shall  have  to  adopt  the  Scottish  (and  the 
Kentucky)  method  of  commissions.  A  commission  is  a  body  consist- 
ing of  not  less  than  a  quorum  of  the  court  appointing  it,  and  in  which 
every  member  of  the  court  who  chooses  to  attend,  has  the  right  to  a 
seat,  clothed  with  full  power  of  the  court  itself.  The  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky set  the  example  of  acting  judicially  by  commission  in  the  case 
of  the  Cumberland  Presbytery.  We  think  the  practice  must  utimately 
be  sanctioned  and  incorporated  into  our  system. 

§  4.  Decisions  may  Confirm  or  Reverse  in  Part,  and  be  Ex- 
pressed in  Minute  of  a  Special  Committee.  [*] 

l^Book  of  Discipline,  chap,  vii.,  sec.  iii.,  par.  x. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  572.] 

A  second  judicial  case  was  what  is  called  the  "  appeal  and  com. 
plaint"  of  Samuel  Lowrie  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Illinois, 
refusing  to  sustain  his  complaint  against  the  Presbytery  of  Peoria,  for 
recognizing  a  second  Church  in  the  town  of  Peoria.  This  case  was 
taken  up  and  regularly  issued  by  the  Assembly.  It  is  twice  or  oftener 
called  an  appeal,  as  well  as  a  complaint. 

The  Assembly  having  heard  the  documents  and  the  parties,  referred 
the  whole  matter  to  a  committee  to  prepare  a  minute  expressive  of  the 
judgment  of  the  house.  We  call  attention  also  to  this  familiar  and 
proper  method  of  proceeding,  because  its  propriety  has  sometimes  been 
questioned.  Our  readers  may  remember  that  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes^ 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  draft  a  resolution  which  should  ex- 
press the  judgment  of  the  house  was  strenuously  resisted,  on  the  ground 
that  the  only  question  which  could  properly  be  submitted,  was,  sustain  or 
not  sustain  ?  It  was  in  vain  urged  that  in  a  multitude  of  cases  the  deci- 
sion of  that  question  would  not  express  the  judgment  of  the  house,  who 
might  be  disposed  to  sustain  in  part,  and  not  in  whole  ;  sustain  as  to  a 
point  of  order,  but  not  on  the  merits ;  therefore  it  was  indispensable  in 
order  to  the  ends  of  justice  that  a  minute  should  be  formed,  stating 
exactly  wherein  the  appeal  was  sustained,  and  wherein  it  was  refused. 
Thus  in  this  case  of  Mr.  Lowrie,  before  any  decision  of  the  case,  the 
matter  was  referred  to  a  committee  to  prepare  a  minute  which  should 
state  how  far  the  Assembly  thought  the  complaint  ought  to  be  sus- 

[*  From  article  on  "  General  Assembly;  "  Princeton  Review)  1840,  p.  415.] 


500  CHURCH  POLITY. 

tained,  and  how  far  the  synod  and  presbytery  were  justifiable  in  what 
they  had  done. 


§  5.    Finality  of  the  Assembly's  Jadieial  Decisions.  [*] 

l^Book  of  Discipline  chap,  vii.,  par.  ii. — Comp.  Digest  of  1873,  p.  533,  534, 596.] 

The  Rev.  Archibald  McQueen  having  married  the  sister  of  his  de- 
ceased wife,  was  for  that  offence  suspended  by  the  Fayetteville  Presby- 
tery from  the  communion  of  the  Church,  and  from  the  exercise  of  the 
office  of  the  ministry.  In  1842  this  sentence  was  confirmed  by  the  de- 
cision of  the  General  Assembly.  Having  submitted  to  the  sentence  of 
suspension  for  about  three  years,  he  applied  to  be  restored  to  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Church  and  to  the  exercise  of  his  ministry.  The  presby- 
tery decided  not  to  restore  him.  Of  this  decision  he  complained  to  the 
Assembly  of  1845,  and  at  the  same  time  memorialized  that  body  pray- 
ing them  to  decree  his  restoration.  In  the  Minutes  of  that  Assembly, 
p.  32,  is  found  the  following  record  in  relation  to  this  subject.  "  The 
second  order  of  the  day  was  taken  up,  viz.,  the  complaint  and  memorial 
of  Archibald  McQueen  against  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville ;  and  on 
motion,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goldsmith  was  appointed  to  manage  the  case  of 
Mr.  McQueen  in  his  absence,  and  agreeably  to  his  request. 

"  The  moderator  having  reminded  the  members  that  they  were  about 
to  sit  in  a  judicial  capacity,  the  papers  in  the  case  were  read  in  due 
order,  and  the  original  parties  were  fully  heard.  After  which  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  on  motion  adopted,  viz. :  Resolved,  That  the  prayer  of 
the  memorialist  be  granted,  so  far  as  that  the  General  Assembly  recom- 
mend the  presbytery  of  Fayetteville  to  reconsider  their  decision  in  the 
case  of  Rev.  Archibald  McQueen  ;  and,  if  in  their  judgment  it  should 
appear  conducive  to  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  the  promotion  of  re- 
ligion in  the  region  around  them,  to  restore  Mr.  McQueen  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church,  and  to  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  the  gospel 
ministry,  on  the  ground  that  in  his  case,  the  ends  of  discipline  are  at- 
tained, by  the  operation  of  the  sentence  under  which  Mr.  McQueen  has 
been  lying  for  a  period  of  three  years." 

The  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville  referred  the  matter  to  the  Assembly 
of  1846,  but  the  reference  was  dismissed,  by  a  vote  for  its  indefinite 
postponement.  The  presbytery  then  proceeded  to  take  action  in  the 
case,  and  restored  Mr.  McQueen  to  the  communion  of  the  Church 
and  to  the  exercise  of  his  ministry.  Against  this  decision  Rev.  Colin 
Mclver  and  others  complained  and  appealed  to  the  Synod  of  North 

[*Frora  article  on  "The  General  Assembly;"  topic;  "The  McQueen  Case;" 
Princeton  Review,  1847,  p.  411.] 


FINALITY  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY'S  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS.     501 

Carolina.  The  synod  sustained  the  action  of  the  presbytery.  Mr. 
Mclver  and  others  complained  of  this  decision  of  the  synod  to  the 
General   Assembly. 

The  judicial  committee  having  reported  the  case  to  be  ready  for 
hearing,  it  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Tuesday  afternoon. 
When  that  hour  arrived  the  case  was  called  up,  and  the  moderator,  in 
a  very  impressive  address,  reminded  the  Assembly  that  they  were  about 
to  sit  in  a  judicial  capacity.  The  papers  in  the  case  were  then  read  in 
part.  When  the  decision  of  the  synod  against  which  the  complaint  was 
entered  had  been  read,  a  motion  was  made  to  dismiss  the  case,  on  the 
ground  that  no  complaint  could  lie  ;  the  matter  having  been  decided 
by  a  former  Assembly.  This  motion  was  after  considerable  debate, 
laid  aside  in  order  that  the  complaint  itself  and  the  reasons  on  which 
it  was  grounded,  should  be  read. 

The  motion  was  then  made  to  dismiss  the  case,  by  the  introduction 
of  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  viz. : 

"  Whereas,  The  Rev.  Archibald  McQueen  prosecuted  a  complaint 
before  the  Assembly  of  1845,  against  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville 
for  refusing  to  restore  him  to  the  exercise  of  the  gospel  ministry,  and 
did  at  the  same  time  memorialize  that  Assembly  to  decree  his  restora- 
tion ;  and  whereas  that  Assembly  did  take  up  and  judicially  entertain 
the  said  complaint,  and  pronounced  judgment  in  the  case  by  authoriz- 
ing and  recommending  the  presbytery  to  restore  the  said  Archibald 
McQueen  to  the  gospel  ministry,  provided  that  in  the  judgment  of  the 
presbytery  it  was  wise  so  to  do,  and  whereas  the  presbytery  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  discretion  thus  confided  to  them  did  restore  Mr.  McQueen, 
Therefore. 

^'Resolved,  That  the  complaint  of  the  Rev.  Colin  Mclver  and  others 
against  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina  for  having  sustained  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville  in  restoring  the  said  Archibald 
McQueen,  in  accordance  with  the  judicial  decision  of  the  Assembly 
of  1845,  cannot  be  entertained  by  this  house,  and  is  hereby  dis- 
missed. 

"In  making  this  disposition  of  the  above  mentioned  complaint, 
this  General  Assembly  wishes  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that 
they  do  not  mean  to  retract  or  modify  any  judgment  hitherto  expressed 
by  any  Assembly  respecting  the  ofience  for  which  Mr.  McQueen  was 
suspended  from  the  exercise  of  the  gospel  ministry.  They  simply  de- 
clare that  his  case  cannot  be  regularly  brought  before  them  by  this 
complaint." 

The  above  resolution  was  adopted,  ayes  95,  nays  53.  This  vote  was 
not  arrived  at  until  Saturday  morning  at  12  o'clock,  the  question  hav- 
ing been  in  the  meantime  debated  at  great  length.    The  resolution  was 


502  CHURCH  POLITY. 

opposed  by  Messrs.  Gazley,  Woodrow,  Kerr,  Berry,  Pryor,  Junkin, 
Mitchell,  Johnston.  It  was  advocated  by  Messrs.  Cunningham,  Hoge, 
Janeway,  Hamil,  Hunt,  Hodge. 

Those  who  sustained  the  resolution  argued  substantially  thus :  la 
the  first  place  the  question  which  this  Assembly  is  called  upon  to  de- 
cide, is  the  precise  question  decided  by  the  Assembly  of  1845.  That 
question  is,  the  propriety  of  restoring  Mr.  McQueen  to  the  ministry. 
The  Assembly  of  1845  decided  he  ought  to  be  restored ;  this  Assembly 
is  called  upon  to  say  he  ought  not  to  be  restored.  The  former  said  the 
ends  of  discipline  in  his  case  were  answered ;  we  are  called  upon  to 
say  they  have  not  been  attained.  It  was  strongly  argued  on  the  other 
side,  that  if  the  Assembly  of  1845  could  reverse  the  decision  of  the 
Assembly  of  1842,  this  Assembly  can  reverse  that  of  1845.  The  As- 
sembly of  '45  did  not  reverse  the  decision  of  that  of  '42.  The  one  As- 
sembly said  Mr.  McQueen  ought  to  be  suspended  from  the  ministry ;  the 
other,  that  having  suffered  that  suspension  for  more  than  three  years,  he 
should  be  restored.  To  reverse  a  decision  is  to  declare  it  erroneous  and 
to  render  it  inoperative.  The  Assembly  of  '45  did  not  sit  in  judgment 
on  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  of  '42,  and  reverse  it ;  the  sentence  of 
suspension  was  not  pronounced  erroneous  or  invalid ;  the  punishment 
was  declared  to  be  sufficient.  It  was  never,  we  suspect,  before  argued 
that  to  restore  a  suspended  minister  or  Church  member  is  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  sentence  of  suspension.  The  questions  therefore  decided 
by  the  Assemblies  of  1842  and  1845,  were  entirely  different.  In  the 
present  case  the  question  is  precisely  the  same.  The  thing  complained 
of  is  the  restoration  of  Mr.  McQueen,  the  very  thing  which  the  Assem- 
bly of  1845  decided  should  be  done.  It  is  that  decision  which  we  are 
ealled  upon  to  pronounce  unconstitutional  and  wrong. 

In  the  second  place,  the  decision  of  this  case  in  1845  was  a  judicial 
decision,  and  being  the  decision  of  the  court  of  last  resort,  is  of  neces- 
sity final.  It  requires  no  argument  to  show  that  the  decision  of  one 
Assembly  cannot  be  reviewed  by  a  subsequent  Assembly.  There  can- 
not be  a  remedy  after  the  last,  a  court  higher  than  the  highest.  One 
Assembly  may  indeed  decide  one  case  one  way,  and  a  following  As- 
sembly decide  a  similar  case  in  another  way.  One  may  act  on  the 
principle  that  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  wife's  sister  is  null  and 
void,  and  that  therefore  separation  must  precede  restoration,  and  on  this 
ground  refuse  to  restore  A.  B.  suffering  under  a  sentence  of  suspension 
for  sueh  a  marriage.  Another  Assembly  may  act  on  the  principle  that 
the  separation  of  the  parties  to  such  a  marriage  is  not  an  indispensable 
condition  to  a  restoration  to  church  privileges,  and  on  this  ground  de- 
cide to  restore  C.  D.  to  Church  fellowship.  In  this  way  one  Assembly 
may  go  counter  to  the  decision  of  another  Assembly ;  but  it  never  can 


FINALITY  OF  THE  ASSEMBLYS  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS.      503 

be  contended  that  one  Assembly  can  review  the  judicial  decision  of  a 
previous  Assembly. 

All  therefore  that  can  be  required  in  the  present  case,  is  to  show 
that  the  decision  of  1845  in  reference  to  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Queen was  really  a  judicial  decision.  It  is  readily  conceded  that  if 
Mr.  McQueen  had  merely  memorialized  the  General  Assembly  to  take 
action  in  his  case,  and  the  Assembly  had  proceeded  to  recommend  to 
the  presbytery  to  restore  him,  such  a  recommendation  would  be  no  bar 
to  our  entertaining  the  present  complaint.  One  Assembly  is  not  bound 
by  the  opinions  or  recommendations  of  another.  Neither  is  any  judi- 
cial decision  binding  as  a  precedent,  as  has  already  been  remarked. 
But  a  case  being  once  judicially  decided  by  one  Assembly,  the  decision 
is  final.  The  only  question,  therefore,  is  whether  the  Assembly  did 
decide  judicially  in  favour  of  the  restoration  of  McQueen. 

A  judicial  decision,  in  the  sense  here  intended,  is  the  judgment  of  a 
court  in  the  decision  of  a  trial.  McQueen  complained  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Fayetteville  for  refusing  to  restore  him  to  the  ministry.  The 
Assembly  of  1845  entertained  that  complaint.  They  resolved  them- 
selves into  a  court  for  that  purpose.  The  papers  were  read  in  order. 
The  parties  were  fully  heard.  The  court  then  proceeded  to  pronounce 
its  judgment ;  which  was  that  the  ends  of  discipline  had  in  his  case 
been  answered,  and  that  the  presbytery  ought  to  restore  him  provided, 
in  their  judgment  it  was  right  to  do  so.  This  was  in  form  and  efi'ect 
a  judicial  decision.  It  was  the  judgment  of  a  court  in  a  case  regularly 
tried.  Our  book  teaches  us  that  a  complaint  may  be  sustained  in 
whole  or  in  part ;  absolutely  and  conditionally  ;  on  a  condition  to  be 
performed  by  the  complainant  or  by  some  other  party.  The  Assembly 
might  have  restored  Mr.  McQueen  on  some  conditions  to  be  performed 
by  himself — as  for  example,  that  he  put  away  his  wife,  or  that  he 
make  a  public  confession  before  the  presbytery.  No  one  can  question 
that  on  the  performance  of  such  condition,  the  judgment  of  the  Assem- 
bly, would  have  been  final.  The  Assembly,  however,  wisely  made  the 
restoration  dependent  on  the  judgment  of  the  presbytery,  as  to  its  pro- 
priety. The  point  really  decided  by  the  Assembly  was  that  temporary 
suspension  is  an  adequate  punishment  fiir  the  ofience  for  which  Mr. 
McQueen  had  been  condemned.  But  whether  that  suspension  had 
been,  in  his  case,  sufficiently  protracted ;  whether  it  had  wrought  its 
proper  effect  upon  him,  or  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity of  which  he  was  a  member,  were  points  on  which  the  presby- 
tery was  the  only  competent  judge.  The  restoration,  therefore,  was 
made  conditional  on  the  judgment  of  the  presbytery  as  to  these  points. 
As  soon  as  the  presbytery  declared  that,  in  their  judgment,  the  interests 
of  religion  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  would  be  promoted  by  his 


504  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

restoration,  tlie  only  condition  attached  to  liis  restoration  was  fulfilled, 
and  the  decision  became  final. 

The  objections  urged  on  the  other  side,  were  principally  these  two : 
first,  that  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1845,  was  a  mere  recomendation 
and  not  a  judicial  decision.  And  secondly,  that  even  if  a  judicial  de- 
cision it  was  null  and  void,  because  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church.  The  answer  to  the  former  of  these  objections  is  contained  in 
the  records  of  the  Assembly,  which  show  that  the  case  was  strictly  a 
judicial  one  ;  that  it  was  so  regarded  by  the  Assembly,  and  so  treated 
and  decided. 

The  answer  to  the  second  objection  is  two-fold.  First,  admitting  the 
allegation  that  the  decision  was  unconstitutional,  it  is  still  final,  and 
cannot  be  reviewed  because  the  decision  of  our  highest  court.  It  is 
not  denied  that  there  are  numerous  decisions  of  a  like  kind  upon  our 
records ;  and  yet  no  one  pretends  that  these  decisions  can  be  brought 
up  and  re-examined  by  this  or  any  subsequent  General  Assembly.  It 
often  happens  that  the  decisions  of  a  supreme  court  are  erroneous  or 
unconstitutional.  And  when  so  considered,  they  ought  to  have  no 
weight  in  the  determination  of  similar  cases,  but  they  are  not  the  less 
final  and  irreversible  for  all  that. 

But  in  the  second  place,  it  is  denied  that  the  decision  in  question 
was  unconstitutional.  The  allegation  is,  that  the  constitution  clearly 
declares  that  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  is 
incestuous,  and  therefore  null  and  void  in  the  sight  of  God  and  the 
Church,  and  consequently,  that  the  parties  to  such  a  marriage  cannot 
be  admitted  or  restored  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church,  unless  the 
marriage  relation  between  them  be  dissolved. 

The  answer  to  this  is,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  word  incest,  as  the 
word  manslaughter,  and  others  of  a  similar  kind,  is  a  term  of  wide  im- 
port, embracing  under  it  acts  of  very  different  degrees  of  moral  turpi- 
tude. Manslaughter  may  vary  from  justifiable  homicide  to  murder  in 
the  first  degree.  And  incest  may  vary  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest 
degree,  according  to  the  degree  of  relationship  between  the  parties.  It 
is  to  confound  all  our  ideas  of  right  and  wrong,  to  shock  the  moral  con- 
victions of  all  sane  men,  to  maintain  that  there  is  no  difierence  between 
marriage  within  the  prohibited  degrees,  when  those  degrees  extend 
from  a  niece  to  a  parent.  No  man  believes  this ;  and  our  Confession  of 
Faith  cannot  be  understood  to  teach  any  such  doctrine.  Admitting, 
therefore,  that  the  Confession  does  pronounce  the  marriage  in  question 
incestuous,  in  the  sense  of  being  within  the  degrees  of  consanguinity 
and  affinity  prohibited  in  the  word  of  God,  it  does  not  follow  that  no 
distinction  is  to  be  made  between  such  a  marriage  and  one  between 
brother  and  sister,  or  parent  and  child.     Such  a  distinction  is  made  in 


FINALITY  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY'S  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS.      505 

Scripture,  and  in  the  nature  of  man.  It  is  made  by  every  human  be- 
ing, and  should  be  made  by  the  Church,  unless  the  Church  means  to 
bring  herself  into  conflict  with  the  Bible,  and  with  the  instinctive 
moral  sentiments  of  men. 

In  the  second  place,  the  interpretation  of  the  Confession  insisted  upon 
on  the  other  side,  is  contrary  to  the  uniform  action  of  our  highest  judica- 
tory for  more  than  a  hundred  years.  While  the  old  Synod  and  the 
General  Assembly  have  repeatedly  censured  the  marriage  in  question, 
they  have  never  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  required  the  parties  to 
separate  as  a  condition  of  their  restoration  to  Church  membership. 
They  have,  however,  repeatedly  decided  just  the  reverse.  See  Minutes 
of  the  Assembly  for  1810,  &c.*  It  cannot  be  just  to  enforce  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  constitution  contrary  to  the  established  action  of  the 
Church,  from  a  period  long  anterior  to  the  date  of  the  admission  of  our 
oldest  living  members.  The  Church  has  in  this  respect  always  recog- 
nized the  obvious  distinction  between  what  is  unlawful  and  what  is 
invalid,  any  thing  contrary  to  the  rule  of  duty  laid  down  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  unlawful ;  but  many  engagements  and  contracts  which  men 
ought  not  to  form,  are,  when  formed,  nevertheless  binding.  It  is  un- 
lawful, i.  e.  contrary  to  the  rule  contained  in  Scripture,  for  a  Christian 
to  marry  a  pagan,  but  such  a  marriage  would  be  valid.  In  the  same 
sense,  it  is  unlawful  for  a  man  to  marry  a  member  of  his  own  house- 
hold, i.  e.  any  one  so  connected  with  him,  as  to  render  it  proper  on  the 
ground  of  that  relationship,  that  they  should  live  together  as  members 
of  the  same  family.  This  is  the  obvious  rule  laid  down  in  Scripture ; 
but  such  a  marriage  may  nevertheless  be  valid  ;    and  is  valid,  unless 

*  We  cite  this  case  as  showing  that  the  ground  now  taken  was  not  only  that 
maintained  by  our  highest  judicatory  as  far  back  as  1810;  but  was  the  ground 
uniformly  taken  by  the  Church  in  all  such  cases. 

"A  reference  from  Bethel  Church,  South  Carolina,  was  overtured,  requesting 
the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  relation  to  a  case  in  which  a  person  had  mar- 
ried the  sister  of  his  deceased  wife.     On  motion, 

''Resolved,  That  this  reference  be  answered  by  the  following  decision  of  the 
Assembly  of  1804.  '  The  Assembly  having  given  repeated  decisions  on  similar 
cases,  cannot  advise  to  annul  such  marriages,  or  pronounce  them  in  such  a  degree 
unlawful  as  that  the  parties,  if  otherwise  worthy,  should  be  debarred  from  the 
privileges  of  the  Church.  But  as  great  diversity  of  opinion  appears  to  exist  on 
such  questions  in  different  parts  of  the  Church,  so  that  no  absolute  rule  can  be 
enjoined  with  regard  to  them,  that  shall  be  universally  binding  and  consistent 
with  the  peace  of  the  Church ;  and  as  the  cases  in  question  are  esteemed  to  be 
doubtful,  the  Assembly  is  constrained  to  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  inferior 
judicatories  under  their  care,  to  act  according  to  their  own  best  light,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  find  themselves  placed."  See  Volume  of  Minutes  of  the 
General  Assembly,  published  by  the  Board  of  Publication,  pp.  456,  457. 


506  CHUKCH  POLITY. 

the  relationship  be  one  of  those  in  reference  to  which  separation  of  the 
parties  is  decreed  in  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  third  place,  the  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  now  con- 
tended for  on  the  other  side,  is  contrary  to  the  practice  of  its  very- 
advocates.  As  members  either  of  presbyteries,  synods,  or  of  the 
General  Assembly,  they  are  in  constant  communion  with  parties  living 
in  the  relation  in  which  McQueen  and  his  wife  stand  to  each  other.  It 
is  not  for  one  moment  to  be  believed  that  these  brethren  would  or 
could  sit  quietly,  if  within  the  bounds  of  their,  own  presbyteries,  Church 
members  were  allowed  to  enjoy  their  privileges  undisturbed,  who  were 
notorious  drunkards,  or  thieves,  or  who,  being  brothers  and  sisters,  had 
intermarried.  And  yet,  if  we  are  correctly  informed,  within  the 
bounds  of  this  very  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville,  there  is  more  than  one 
such  case.  And  sure  we  are  that  such  cases  are  numerous  in  all  parts 
of  our  Church,  where  such  marriages  are  not  forbidden  by  the  law  of 
the  land.  The  only  consistent  course,  therefore,  is  the  one  on  which 
our  Assembly  has  so  long  acted.  That  is,  to  censure  such  marriages, 
whenever  brought  before  them  judicially,  but  not  to  insist  on  the 
separation  of  the  parties.  It  was,  therefore,  very  proper  in  the  As- 
sembly of  1842,  to  sanction  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville, 
in  suspending  Mr.  McQueen ;  but  it  would  be  contrary  to  our  long 
established  usage  for  this  Assembly  to  insist  that  he  must  repudiate  his 
wife. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  interpretation  in  question,  is  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God.  It  supposes  that  all  violations  of  the  general  law, 
"  none  of  you  shall  marry  any  who  is  near  of  kin  to  him,"  are  to  be 
treated  just  alike ;  whereas  the  Bible  makes  a  great  distinction  between 
the  cases.  For  one  offence  against  that  law,  the  parties  were  to  be 
burnt  to  death  ;  for  another,  they  were  to  be  stoned  ;  for  another,  ex- 
communicated ;  for  another,  they  were  to  die  childless.  These  pen- 
alties being  part  of  the  judicial  system  of  the  Hebrews,  are  no  longer 
binding.  But  the  offences  to  which  they  are  attached,  being  offences 
against  a  law  having  its  foundation  in  the  permanent  relations  of  men, 
are  offences  still.  And  the  fact  that  they  were  visited  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, with  such  different  degrees  of  punishment,  shows  that  they 
are  not  to  be  confounded. 

The  decision  of  the  Assembly  of  1845,  that  a  man  who  had  married 
his  deceased  wife's  sister  might  be  restored  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Church,  without  repudiating  his  wife,  is  not  contrary  to  the  constitu- 
tion, as  that  instrument  has  been  interpreted  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years,  and  as  understood  in  the  light  of  God's  own  word.  All  this, 
however,  is  really  foreign  to  the  present  question,  which  is  simply  this, 
whether  a  man  restored  to  the  ministry  by  one  Assembly,  can  be  again 


FINALITY  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY'S  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS.     507 

suspended  on  the  ground  that  such  restoration  was  unwise,  injurious,  or 
unconstitutional?  Mr.  McQueen  was  conditionally  restored  by  the 
Assembly  of  1845,  and  the  condition  having  been  fulfilled  by  the  ac- 
tion of  his  presbytery,  the  decision  became  final. 

It  is  due  to  the  complete  history  of  the  marriage  question  before  this 
Assembly,  to  add,  that  the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Patterson,  viz :  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly  overture  to 
the  presbyteries  the  following  question,  viz:  Shall  that  part  of  the 
fourth  section  of  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
from  1  to  2,  which  says,  "  Nor  can  any  such  incestuous  marriages  ever 
be  made  lawful  by  any  law  of  man,  or  consent  of  parties,  so  as  those 
persons  may  live  together  as  man  and  wife,"  be  stricken  out?  This 
resolution  was  urged  by  the  mover  and  Dr.  Hoyt,  solely  on  the  ground 
that  the  law  as  it  now  stands  in  the  book  is  inconsistent  with  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church.  The  previous  question  was  moved  by  Mr.  Hunt, 
after  very  little  discussion,  and  the  resolution  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  57  ayes  to  89  noes. 

A  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Berry,  reproving,  and  bearing  testimony 
against  those  presbyteries  and  Church  sessions  which  allow  the  forma- 
tion of  this  marriage  relation,  was  also  rejected  without  a  division,  and 
by  a  very  large  vote. 


INDEX. 


[TITLES  PRINTED  IN  Black  tetter  ARE  FOLLOWED  BY  OUTLINES  OF  THE 
CHAPTERS  OR  SECTIONS  INDICATED.] 


/ 


Abraham,  two  covenants  with,  66. 

Abstinence,  total,  see  Temperance  Question. 

Accidentals  and  essentials,  distinction  be- 
tween, 297. 

Adger,  Dr.,  opposed  to  the  Boards,  437. 

Admission,  to  the  Church,  terms  of,  not  to  be 
established  by  the  State,  117;  to  sealing 
ordinances,  of  those  baptized  in  infancy, 
is  confirmation,  157;  control  of  session 
over,  310 ;  to  the  Church,  to  office  of  min- 
istry and  to  professorship  in  a  seminary, 
distinction  in  terms  of,  327. 

Adopting  Act,  172;  quoted,  321;  teaching  of, 
322,  323. 

Adoption  of  tbe  Confessionof  Faith 

Chapter  xiv.,  g  7.  a ,  In  Reply  to  Certain 

Strictures,  317-335 : — Obscurity  as  to  sense 

of  phrase  "System  of  doctrine"  in  the 

I   ordination  service,  317 ;  the  candidate  has 

"■  \  no  right  to  put  his  own  construction  on 
I  it,  318; — "System  of  doctrine"  is  not 
identical  with  "  substance  of  doctrine  "  : 
first,  latter  not  the  meaning  of  the  words 
employed,  320;  second,  contrary  to  the 
mind  of  the  Church  as  seen  in  the  Adopt- 
ing Act  of  the  original  Synod  (1729),  and 
its  reaffirmations,  321-324;  third,  it  has  no 
assignable  meaning,  32i;  fourth,  trial  of 
it  has  resulted  in  great  evils,  325; — "Sys- 
tem of  doctrine  "  does  not  include  every 
proposition  of  the  Confession :  first,  his- 
torical meaning  of  words  not  so  inclusive* 
326 ;  second,  not  the  mind  of  the  Church 
as  indicated  and  established,  (1)  by  ab- 
sence of  distinct  assertion,  327;  (2)  by 
official  explanation  of  the  phrase,  327;  (■?) 
by  contemporary  testimony,  328 ;  (4)  by 
uniform  action  of  the  Church,  330;  third> 
the  requirement  of  the  ipsissima  verba  is 
impracticable,  330;  fourth,  it  is  an  inordi- 
nate demand  which  can  only  tend  to  evil, 
331;— The  true   content   of  the   phrase 

Y  "  system  of  doctrine  "  :  first,  the  histori- 

/^  cal  sense  includes  the  five  characteristic 


points  of  AuguEtinianism,  333  ;  second,  this 
was  the  intention  of  the  Church  in  re- 
quiring adoption  of  the  Confession,  334 ; 
third,  it  is  the  only  sense  consistent  with 
a  good  conscience,  and  with  the  peace 
and  union  of  the  Church,  335. 

Chapter  xiv.  §  7.    5.  In  view  of  the  Re-      \t 
union,  335-342 :  —  "  System  of  doctrine  "     f^ 
does  not  include  explanations  of  doc- 
trines, 336-338;  doctrines   which  are   in- 
cluded in  the  phrase,  338-340;  phrase  does 
not  mean  substance  of  doctrine,  341,  342. 

Adoption,  of  present  constitution,  (178S),  174. 

Advent,  no  continuous  organization  of  tlie 
Church  before  or  since,  78-84. 

'Aytos,  significance  of,  6. 

Albigenses,  88. 

Alexander,  Dr.  J.  W.,  report  to  Assembly 
(1846)  on  parochial  schools,  448. 

Ambrose,  on  difference  between  bishop  and 
presbyter,  150. 

American  Board,  434. 

Analogy  of  old  dispensation  as  affecting  the 
doctrine  of  visibility  of  the  Church,  65-07. 

Anglicans,  definition  of  the  Church,  G8  ;  con- 
cede that  external  Church  may  apostatize, 
84;  theories  of,  as  to  relation  of  Church 
and  State,  111;  schismatical  in  refusing 
to  recognise  the  validity  of  orders  in 
other  churches,  134;  animut,  and  status  of 
the  Anglican  Church,  135;  subordinates 
truth  to  form,  136 ;  Romish  character  of 
its  liturgy,  160;  see  England,  Church  of; 
Episcopacy  and  Oxford. 

Animus  imponentis,  illustrations  of,  319. 

Anselm,  on  baptism  by  heretics,  194. 

Antichrist,  teaching  of  Romanists  conc3rn- 
ing,  84 ;  Church  of  Rome  may  be,  and  yet 
her  baptism  be  valid,  214. 

Antinomianism,  35. 

A  Particular  Church,  chapter  xii.,  190-242; 
subject  to  the  body  of  other  churches,  92 ; 
ministers  not  members  of,  343 ;  supervi- 
sion of,  when  vacant,  362. 

509 


610 


INDEX. 


Apostasy,  of  any  Church,  not,inconsistent 
with  true  perpetuity  of  the  church,  C9 ; 
may  exist  with  orthodox  standards,  72; 
predictions  of  general,  77  ;  before  the  Ad- 
vent, 78-82 ;  since  the  Advent,  82-84  ;  of  ex- 
ternal Church,  conceded  by  opponents, 
84,  85. 

Apostle,  essential  qualifications  of,  123, 124. 

Apostolic  Churches,  not  free  from  error,  72  ; 
apostles  and  prophets  superior  to  presby- 
ters in. 123;  recognised  authority  of  people 
in  government,  2G2;  adopted  no  one  unva- 
rying organization,  277,  278.— succession, 
see  Succession. 

Apostolicity,  according  to  Ritualism,  49. 

Appeals  and  Complaints,  chapter  xvi.  g  3, 
470-409;  difference  between,  493;  objec- 
tions to  having  them  stop  at  Synod,  499 ; 
Assembly  unsuitable  for  court  of,  456. 

Appeals  in  Cases  not  Judicial,  chap, 
xvi.  §  3.  a.  470-484 :— Decision  of  Assembly 

(1830)  that  appeals  cannot  lie  except  inju- 
dicial   eases,   470;    only  one   precedent 

(1831)  for  thisdecision,  471;— Definition  of 
the  term  "judicial  case.s,"  472;  (1)  relate 
to  any  executive  act  of  lower    courts, 
473;   (2)    to  the  judgmen.t  on   a  decis- 
ion of  a  lower  court,  473 ;— Decision  of 
the   Assembly   is  contrary   to   the  true 
meaning  of  the  constitution,  (I)  as   to 
what  kinds  of  decisions  may  be  carried 
up  on  appeal,  474;  and  (2)  as  to  how  an 
appeal  is  to  be  prosecuted,  475  ;  —Fallacy 
of  the  argument  in  support  of  that  de- 
cision seen  (1)  in  fact  that  the  technical 
terms  of  our  book  are  not  to  be  under- 
stood according  to  usage  of  civil  courts, 
476;  (2)  that  our  rules  were  drawn  with 
epecialireference  to  judicial  eases,  476; 
(3)  the  argument  assumes  there  can  be 
no  judicial  investigation  of  anything  but 
a  judicial  act,  477;  while  (4)  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  book    can  be  fully  complied 
with  in  cases  of  appoals  from  executive 
acts,  478;— This  new  doctrine  subverts 
the  principles  of  our  system:  it  denies 
the  right  of  redress,  479 ;  since  "  common 
fame "  is  a  rare   and  indirect  remedy, 
4S0;  and  the  right  of  appeal  is  as  eacred 
as  that  of  complaint,  4S1 ;— And  it  is  at 
variance   with  the  uniform  practice  of 
the  Church :  (1)  the  authority  of  usage 
in  interpreting  the  constitution,  482 ;  (2) 
the  uniformity    of  this  usage,  482-484; 
Review  of   Decision    that    Ap- 
peals cannot  lie  except  in  Ju- 
dicial cases,  chap,  xvi,  §3.  6.  485-490: 
—The  new  doctrine  against  all  precedent, 
486;  contrary  to  express  language  and 
obvious   intent  of  constitution,  486,  487  ; 
the  right  of  appeal  essential  to  our  sys- 


tem, 488  ;  this  action  of  Assembly  (1848) 
involves  a  contradiction,  489. 

Articles  of  Religion  in  Church  of  England, 
were  act  of  civil  power  alone,  109  ;  recog- 
nise validity  of  Presbyterian  orders,  154. 

Arianism,  extent  of,  in  time  of  Constantius, 
83. 

Ariminum,  council  of,  denied  proper  divini- 
ty of  Christ,  82. 

Arius,  assent  to  his  doctrines  by  Eastern 
bishops,  82. 

Aries,  council  of,  on  baptism  by  heretics,  193. 

Arnold,  Dr.,  identifies  government  of  Church 
and  state,  111. 

Assembly,  see  General  Assembly. 

Athanasius,  on  prevalence  of  heresy,  82. 

Attributes  of  the  Church,  17-29  :  holiness,  17  ; 
unity,  21;  of  faith,  22;  of  love,  22;  of  com- 
munion, 23,  24  ;  of  catholicity,  25,26;  per- 
petuity, 27. 

Augustine,  description  of  the  Church,  20; 
on  the  unity  of  the  Church,  25;  preva- 
lence of  his  doctrines,  95  :  on  difference 
between  bishop  and  presbyter,  150;  on 
water  as  essential  to  baptism,  196. 

Authority, — of  thd  Church,  ground  and  limi- 
tation of,  92,  404,  405;— of  higher  courts 
increased  by  revision  of  the  constitution 
(1821),  176;  legislative  and  executive, 
examples  of,  178-189  (see  Constitution, 
Powers,  &c.);— of  usage  in  interpreting 
the  constitution,  482. 

Authentication  of  the  ministry,  ordinary  and 
extraordinary,  144. 


Baelow,  on  difference  between  bishop  and 
presbyter,  149. 

Baird,  Religion  in  America,  describes  officers 
of  early  New  England  churches,  270. 

Baptized  persons,  are  members  of  the  visible 
Church,  103;  theory  that  only  baptized 
persons  may  vote  in  election  of  pastors  is 
contrary  to  our  standards,  246. 

Baptism,  Oxford  theory  of,  19 ;  not  regenera- 
tion, 60 ;  Romanists'  admissions,  76  ;  see 
Validity  of  Komisb  Baptism; 
Romish  baptism  pronounced  invalid  by 
Assembly  (1815),  192;  true  baptism  is  a 
washing  with  water,  193;  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity,,  193 ;  with  intention  to  signi- 
fy, seal  and  apply  benefits  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  195 ;  these  essentials  are 
possessed  by  Rome,  196-199  ;  meaning  of 
valid  and  invalid  in  reference  to  the  per- 
sons who  administer  thorite,  199,200; 
priests  of  Rome  are  valid  ministers  for 
this  rite,  203,  204;  the  right  initiates,  not 
into  any  particular  organization,  but  into 
Church  universal,  212,  213;  objections  to 
re-baptism,    214;    admitting   validity  of 


INDEX. 


511 


Romish  baptism  does  not  deny  iniquity 

of  Romish  system,  214,215 ;— not  the  only 

way  of  professing  the  true  religion,  246. 

Baptists,  impair  the  unity  of  the  Church,  94. 

Bellarmin,  definition  of  the  Church,  18;  of 
the  visibility  of  the  Church,  55;  on  ne- 
cessity of  perpetuity  of  Church  as  ex- 
ternal visible  society,  75;  his  dilemma 
against  Protestants,  77  ;  on  the  catholic- 
ity and  perpetuity  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
78,  81;  on  visibility  of  the  Church  in  time 
of  general  defection,  83 ;  on  Antichrist, 
85;  on  justification,  209,  note. 

Beza,  concerning  baptism,  193. 

Bible,  Cbnrcb  commentary  on  tho, 
chapter  xv.  g  4.  c.  380-384 :— Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's proposition,  380 ;  stupendous  char- 
acter of  the  undertaking,  381 ;  inconsis- 
tent with  the  liberty  of  faith,  382;  utterly 
impracticable,  383.  —Does  not  prescribe 
one  unvarying  form  of  government  for 
the  Church  (see  Government),  122 ;  ob- 
jections to  its  expulsion  from  the  public 
schools,  452;  see  Scriptures. 

Bible  Societies,  advantages  of  voluntary  or- 
ganizations for,  427. 

Bingham's  Scholastic  Historyof  Lay  Baptism, 
on  baptism  by  heretics,  193. 

Birch,  Rev.  Mr.,  case  of,  illustrates  right  of 
presbytery  to  judge  the  qualifications  of 
its  members,  311. 

Bishop  and  Presbyter,  distinction  between 
made  in  early  English  Church,  (1)  in 
opinion  of  leading  divines,  147-154;  (2) 
in  Articles  and  Formularies,  154;  (3)  in 
practi  ce,  155,  156.— Title  Of  bishop, 
chap.  xiii.  ?  1  :  terms  presbyter  and 
bishop  applied  to  same  officer  in  New 
Testament,  242;  were  convertible  terms 
in  apostolic  Church,  242  ;  yet  undesirable 
to  change  the  prevailing  incorrect  usage 
243, — never  applied  to  ruling  elders  in 
our  standards,  205. 

Bishops  opposed  the  Reformation  in  Ger- 
many, 112. 

Boards,  and  Committees  [of  Assembly], 
chapter  xv.  §  G.  417-447  :— a.  Voluntary  So- 
cieties and  Ecclesiastical  Organizations, 
417-435;— 6.  Warrant  for  Boards,  435-443; 
— e.  Relations  of  Boards  and  Presbyteries, 
443-445 ; — d.  Board  of  Education  may  con- 
dition Aid  on  Length  of  Study,  445-447;— 
Inconsisti  nt  to  object  that  Boards  are  not 
prescribed  in  Scripture,  131,  132 ;  debate 
on  at  Rochester  (1860),  118,  435-443; 
Boards  necessary  to  conduct  secular  af- 
fairs of  missions,  420,  422 ;  do  not  affect 
liberty  of  individual  in  contributing,  420, 
421 ;  are  expedient,  422 ;  responsible  to 
the  Assembl;,!  425  ;  money  power  of  not 
dangerous,  420 ;  right  of  the  Assembly  to 


create  them,  430 ;  opposition  to  by  Dr.  B. 
M.  Smith,  and  Dr.  Adger,  437 ;  Dr.  Thorn ', 
well's  theory  of,  438,  439  ;  origin  and  need 
of  them,  440;  divine  right  for,  103,  441; 
inexpediency  of  any  radical  change  in 
(1800),  442, 443,— See  Warrant,  Volun- 
tary Societies. 

Bohemian  brethren,  88. 

Book  of  Common  Order,  on  efficacy  of 
baptism,  108,— of  Common  Prayer,  en- 
acted by  Parliament,  109;  (see  Prayer, 
Book  of  Common);— of  Discipline,  how 
adopted,  174;  revision  of,  see  Revision. 

Bonner,  bishop  of  London,  on  difference  be- 
tween bishops  and  presbyters,  148. 

Bossuet,  objections!  to  Protestant  theory  of 
the  visibility  of  the  Church,  64  ;  claims 
that  Rome  possesses  the  fundamentals  of 
religion,  208;  on  justification,  209. 

Breckinridge,  Dr.  R.  J.,  proposition  of,  for  a 
Church  commentary  on  the  Bible,  380; 
appeal  and  complaint  against  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  490—498. 

Bunyan's  call  to  the  ministry,  87. 

Business  of  Assembly,  manner  [of  conduct- 
ing, 373,  457. 


Calendar,  Romish,  English  liturgy  con- 
structed on,  160. 

Call  to  the  ministry,  Protestant  theory  of,  143, 
144,146,348,349;  See  Ministry,  Bunyan, 
Calvin,  Farel. 

Calvin,  on  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church  with- 
out external  form,  73 ;  on  distinction  be- 
tween presbyter  and  ruling  elder,  130, 
264;  his  call  to  the  ministry,  144  ;  on  the 
criteria  of  a  true  Church,  152 ;  habit  of 
writing  his  public  prayers,  1G3;  on  the 
character  of  the  administrator  as  affect- 
ing the  validity  of  baptism,  203  ;  on  the 
distinction  between  the  papal  system  and 
the  Church  of  Rome,  211. 

Calvinist,  a,  may  deny  that  the  Pope  is  Anti- 
christ, 336. 

Candidate  for  ministry,  rule  concerning, 
adopted  by  old  Synod  (1758),  181 ;  presby- 
tery judges  qualifications  of,  182;  may 
not  put  his  own  construction  on  formula 
for  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
318.  (see  Adoption  of  the  Confes> 
sion.)  ;  examination  before  presbytery 
not  the  only  security  required,  428;  see 
Ordination,  Ministers  and  Ministry. 

Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  on  validity  of  or- 
ders of  the  foreign  and  non-Episcopal 
Churches,  147. 

Case  of  an  elder  who  had  ceased  to  act,  com- 
missioned to  the  Assembly,  chapter  xv, 
§  1.  d.  366. 

Catholicity  of  the  Church,  25-27,  44. 


512 


INDEX. 


Chalmers,  Thomas,  An  Earnest  Appeal  to  the 
Free  Church  of  Scotland  on  the  Subject  of 
Economics,  247. 

Charge,  ministers  without  pastoral,  chapter 
xiv,  ?  9,  343-345. 

Children  of  believers  are  members  of  the 
Church,  102;  see  Baptism,'  and  Infant 
members. 

Christian,  the  word  amoiguous,  60;  the  sin 
of  refusing  to  recognise  those  of  other 
denominations  as  Christians,  97. 

Church,  Idea  of  tt»e  CJiurcli,  chapter  i., 
5-38  :  —  The  communion  of  saints,  5  ; 
Mode  of  verifying  the  true  idea,  7 ;  first, 
from  the  scriptural  use  of  the  word,  do- 
Bignates  the  "called,"  8-12;  second,  from 
the  scriptural  equivalents  of  the  word, 
12-15  ;  third,  from  the  scriptural  descrip- 
tions of  the  Church ;  (1)  body  of  Christ, 
15;  (2)  temple,  (3)  family  of  God,  (4)  flock 
Of  Christ,  IG ;  (5)  bride  of  Christ,  17 ; 
fourth,  from  the  attributes  of  the  Church  : 
(1)  holiness,  17 ;  (2)  unity,  21 ;  of  faith  and 
love,  22  ;  of  communion,  23,  24 ;  of  catho- 
licity, 25,  26;  (3)  perpetuity,  27,  28  ;  fifth, 
from  the  promises  to  the  Church :  (1)  of 
the  continued  presence  of  Christ,  29 ;  (2) 
of  divine  teaching,  30 ;  (3)  of  divine  pro- 
tection, 31 ;  (4)  of  universality,  31 ;  (5)  of 
holiness  and  salvation,  32;  the  evil  ten- 
dencies of  false  theories,  33,  34;  sixth, 
from  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  :  (1) 
authority  to  teach,  35,  36;  (2)  the  "power 
of  the  keys,"  37.— Theories  of  the 
Church,  chapter  ii.,38-55:— The  theory 
of  the  Church  depends  on  the  theory  of 
doctrine,  38;  conflicts  of  the  Evangelical, 
the  Ritual  and  the  Rationalistic  sys- 
tems, 39,  40 ;  —  Evangelical  Systevi ;  Em- 
phasizes spiritual  nature  of  Church,  40 ; 
distinction  betweeen  visible  and  invisi- 
ble Church  fundamental,  41;  Holy  Spirit 
the  essential  bond  of  unity,  42  ;  necessity 
for  restricted  organizations,  ^ ;  sense  in 
which  Church  is  catholic,  44;  criteria  of 
a  true  Church,  44;  this  theory  not  too 
latitudinarian,  45;  nor  too  difHcult  for 
practical  determination,  45;  out  of  this 
visible  Church  there  is  no  ordinary  pos- 
sibility of  salvation,  4fi.— T/ie  Ritual  Sys- 
tem; distinguished  by  thepriestly  char- 
acter of  the  ministry,  47 ;  by  inherent 
virtue  of  sacraments,  47  ;  makes  Church 
a  store-house  of  divine  grace,  48 ;  and  its 
unity  one  of  external  association,  49; 
Insists  on  descent  through  prelates  from 
the  apostles,  49;  attitude  towards  other 
Christian  bodies,  50;  this  theory  is  weak 
and  unscriptural,  51 ;  although  plausible, 
52;  and  well  adapted  to  meet  desires  of 
the  human  heart,  52 ;  but  it  perverts  and 


injures  the  religious  life,  53;  and  is  con- 
demned by  its  fruits,  ti;— The  Rational- 
istic  theory,  54,  55.— VislhilHy  of  the 

Chnrch,  chapter  iii.,  55-67: — Protestant 
definition  of  visihility:  (1)  Church  consists 
of  living  men  and  women,  50;  who  (2) 
manifest  ttieir  faith  by  their  works,  56; 

(3)  are  separated  from  the  world,  56 ;  and 

(4)  are  visible  as  the  soul  is  visible  in  the 
body,  57,  58; — Proof  of  the  doctrine:  (1) 
the  nature  of  the  Church,  59 ;  (2)  Paul's 
distinction  between  "  Israel  after  the 
flesh  "  and  "  Israel  after  the  Spirit,"  59 ; 

(3)  St.  John's  teaching,  60;  (4i  Church 
must  always  retain  its  essential  attri- 
butes, CI ;  (5)  Romish  doctrine  incon- 
gruous with  Bible  teaching,  61 ; — Objec- 
tions answered:  (1)  that  Church  is  spoken 
of  and  addressed  as  visible  external 
society  of  professing  Christians,  62 ;  (2) 
that  it  possesses  officers,  laws  and  terms 
of  communion,  63,  64;  (3)  that  we  are  re- 
quired to  hear  and  obey  the  Church,  65  ; 

(4)  the  analogy  of  the  old  dispensation, 
65-G7.— Perpetuity  of  the  Cbarch, 
chapter  iv.,  67-88 :  —  Importance  of  a 
correct  definition  of  the  Church,  68; — 
Promise  of  Christ  does  not  secure  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  any  particular  Church 
as  an  organized  body,  69 , — Nor  does  it  se- 
cure his  Church  from  all  error  in  matten 
of  faith,  69;  for  (1)  freedom  from  all  error 
is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  70 ;  and,  (2) 
in  fact  no  Church  has  been  free  from 
eriOT,  11,  72;— Perpetuity  does  not  involve 
the  continued  existence  of  any  visible  organ- 
ized body  professing  the  true  religion,  and 
furnished  with  regular  pastors:  (1)  this 
flows  from  true  definition  of  the  Church, 
72,  73 ;  (2)  continued  existence  of  true 
believers  alone  required  by  Scripture,  73, 
74;  (3)  no  necessity  for  continued  exis- 
tence of  external  visible  socieiy,  75,  76; 

(4)  predictions   of  general  apostasy,  77; 

(5)  no  continued  existence  of  any  organ- 
ization before  the  advent  of  Christ,  78-82; 

(6)  nor  since  the  advent,  82-84;  (7)  oppo- 
nents concede  that  external  Church  may 
apostatize,  84;  (8)  true  sense  in  which 
Church  is  perpetual,  8&-88.  —  Princi* 
pies  of  Church  Union,  chapter  v., 
89-100 : — Consequences  of  the  indwelling  of 
the  Holy 'Spirit:  unity  (1)  of  faith,  (2)  of 
religious  experience,  90;  (3)  in  brotherly 
love,  91; — Organic  external  union:  (1) 
origin  of  individual  and  separate  con- 
gregations, 91 ;  (2)  essential  unity  of 
them  though  widely  ■leparated,  92;  (3)  on 
the  principle  of  representation,  93;  — 
Orounds  of  divisionin  the  Church:  (1)  im- 
perfections of  faith  and  life,  93;  lead  (2) 


INDEX. 


513 


to  the  exclusive   principles  of  various 
bodies :  of  tiie  Romanists,  93 ;   of  Prola- 
tists,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Bajv 
tists,  94;  of  others,  95;  and  these  grounds 
(3)  are  found  most  frequently  in  diversity 
of  opinion  as  to  government  rather  than 
as  to  doctrines,  Qo ;—Iielative  duties  of  dif- 
ferent dencmiinations :  organic  union  when 
grounds  of  separation  are  inadequate  or 
unscriptural,  96;   otherwise,  (1)   mutual 
recognition,  97;  (2)  free,  open  communion, 
98;  (3)  recognition  of  the  validity  of  each 
other's   acts  of  discipline,  98;   and    (4) 
ordination,  99 ;    (5)  non-interference    in 
the  same  field,  100;  (6)  cultivation  of  peace, 
100.  —  Province  of  the   Chnrcta, 
chapter  vi.,  100-106 :— Puritan  theory  of, 
and   its   effects    in    New  England,  101; 
influence  of  this  theory  on  Presbyterian- 
ism,  102;— Presbyterian  theory  of:  to  tes- 
tify for  the  truth  wherever  Church  can 
make  her  voice  heard,  103;   concerning 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  marriage  and 
divorce  laws,  slavery,  &c.,  104;  principles 
upon  which  the  duty  rests,  105;  history 
of  Presbyterian   Church    instinct   with 
this   spirit,   105,   106.  —  Relation    of 
C!harcta  and  State,  chapter  vii.,  106, 
118:— Church  of  Rome:  Church  indepen- 
dent before  the  conversion  of  Constan- 
tine,  106 ;  relation  under  the  Emperors, 
107;    under, papacy  the  Church    gained 
complete  ascendency  over  the  State,  10" ; 
this    development   the    product    of    a 
theory,l08;—CVi  urc/»  of  England:  Reforma- 
tion effected  by  civil  power,  109;  and  the 
king  became  supreme  head  of  the  church, 
110;    different   theories   to  justify   this 
entire  subordination  of  Church  to  State, 
110;  —  Lutheran  Churches:    Reformation 
led    by  ^Luther   and    the    people,  112 ; 
who  caHed  in  aid  of  civil  power  because 
the  bishops   held  aloof,  112;    henCe  the 
prince    became    the   real    possessor   of 
Church  power,  113;  different  theories  to 
give  form  and  intelligibility  to  this  re- 
lation, 113;— JJe/oj-med  CJiurches:  Turret- 
tin  on  the  right  which  belongs  to  the 
Christian  magistrate  in  reference  to  the 
Church,  114;   teaching  of  Westminster 
Confession,  114;  practical  interpretation 
in  Scotland,  115;  modification  of  the  doc- 
trine  as   taught   by   Puritans    in    New 
England,  115;  theory  on  which  the  Re 
formed   teaching   rests,   116; — Relation 
between  Church  awl  Statein  this  country: 
recent  "origin,  116  ;  of  the  current  doc- 
trine that  Church  and  State  are  divine 
institutions,  with  same  general  ends,  but 
with  different  means,  116 ;    while  their 
relative  duties  are  to  be  le  amed  from 

33 


New  Testame^  rather  than  Old,  and 
this  raalies  Church  independent  of  the 
state,  117  ;  see  Magistrate,  civil. 
— Spiritual  nature  of  the  Church,  137 ;  am- 
biguity of  the  word,  205 ;  definition  of, 
205,  206  ;  an  organized  Christian  society, 
246  ;  has  power  of  self-government,  277 ; 
duty  of  to  impart  religious  instruction, 
449,  450,  453. 

— Particular  Church:  chapter  xii., 190-242; 
subject  to  the  body  of  Churches,  92;  min- 
isters not  members  of,  343;  see  Commun- 
ion, Powers,  Session,  &c. 
Churches,   vacant,   supervision  of,   chapter 

xiv,  ?  12,  302,  363. 
Citation  of  Jadicatories,  chapter  xvi, 
§  2,   461-470 :  —  Resolution   of    Assembly 
(1837)  to   cite  the    inferior  judicatories 
charged  by  common  form  with  irregu- 
larities, 401; — Grounds   of  opposition  to 
the    resolution:  first,   denied    that  the 
Assembly  possessed  original  jurisdiction 
in  the  case,4C2     second,  that  it  had  no 
right  to  cite  a  presbytery,  462 ;  third,  ob- 
jections to  the  mode  of  procedure:    (1) 
extraordinary,  463  ;  (2)  unnecessary,  463 ; 
(3)  an  outrage  upon  the  constitution,  464; 
— .\rgument  in  support  of  the  resolution : 
first,  the  citation  is  justified  by  specific 
provisions  of  the  constitution  and  by  the 
general  nature  of  our  system,  465,  466; 
second,  the  right  of  citation  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  judicatory  next  above,  467; 
third,    the    opposing   party  have  them- 
selves given  precedents  for  this  course, 
468 ;  fourth,  the  powers  of  the  Assembly 
are  not  granted  but  only  limited  by  the 
constitution,  468  ;  fifth,  the  citation  in- 
volves the  exclusion  of  the  commission- 
ers  pending  investigation,  409,  470. 
Clergy,  Protestant  doctrine  of,  141 ;  see  Min- 
isters, Ministry,  Support  of,  chap.  xiii.  g  3, 
247-262,  see  Support  of  the  Clerg-y. 
Clerks  of  Assembly,  power  of,  in  formation 

of  roll,  368-370. 
Coit,  J.  C,  review  of  his  "  Discourse deli- 
vered, December,  1839,"  218. 
Comity,  denominational,  a  duty,  100. 
Commentary  on  the  Bible,  prepared  and  au- 
thorized   by  the   Presbyterian  Church, 
chap.    XV.,   I  4,   e.,  380—384,    see   Bible- 
Chnrch  Commentary  on. 
Commission,  the  divine,  of  the  Church,  103; 
devolves  support   of    clergy   on   whole 
body,  254. 
Commissioners,  chapter  xv.,  g  1,  364-373: 
—a.  Assembly  judges  Qualifications  of  ita 
Members:  decides  as  to  authority  of  body 
granting   commission,   364;   and    as    to 
right  of  delegate  to  hold  it,  364;— 6.  D  a- 
puted  Elections :  validity  of  commiasioa 


514 


INDEX. 


given  without  regular  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery denied,  365 ;— c.  Irregular  Commis- 
sions :  intention  of  presbytery  should  be 
the  deciding  question  as  to  validity,  366; 
— d.  Case  of  an  Eider  who  had  ceased  to 
act:  outline  of  debate  in  assembly  (1835) 
in  the  matter,  367;  — e.  Commissioners 
excluded  pending  investigation:  the  con- 
stitutional rule,  3G8;  clerks  entrusted 
with  the  formation  of  the  roll,  369 ;  checks 
on  abuse  of  this  power,  370 ;  (see  also  407, 
Exclusion  of  Synod  of  Western 
Reserve,  and  Declaration  and  Testi- 
mony) ; —  f.  Reduction  of  Representation: 
(1)  will  not  shorten  debates,  371 ;  (2)  a 
large  assembly  worth  what  it  costs,  372 ; 
(3)  vacation  of  so  many  pulpits  no  se- 
rious evil,  373. 

Commissions,  difference  between  Scotch  and 
American  Church  in  respect  to,  175;  an- 
nual, of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  376; 
must  consist  of  at  least  a  quorum  of  the 
body  appointing,  361,  375;— of  General 
Assembly,  chapter  xv.,  g  3,  374-377; 
—In  favor  of,  to  try  appeals  and  com- 
plaints, chapter  xvi.,  ?  3,  d.  498 ;  —  of 
Presbyteries  and  Synods,  chapter 
xiv.,g  11,  353-362 ;— Report  on  subject,  by 
Dr.  Hodge,  to  Assembly  (1847) :  ^irst  such 
appointments  are  consistent  with  the 
constitution  because  (1)  constitution  is  a 
limitation  and  not  a  grant  of  powers  of 
primary  courts ,  354;  and  that  the  power 
question  inheres  in  these  courts  is  seen 
(a).,  in  their  nature,  354 ;  and  (5).,  in  uni- 
versal consent,  355 ;  (2)  the  constitution 
has  not  limited  this  power,  355;  second, 
they  are  in  accord  with  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Church :  (1)  the  annual 
commissions  of  the  old  Synods,  356;  (2) 
Ininstances  of  special  committees  with 
full  powers,  356-359 ;  third,  objections  to 
the  exercise  of  this  power  answered:  (1) 
the  inherent  power  of  primary  courts, 
360;  (2)  constitutional  checks  against  its 
abuse,  361 ;  (3)  the  desirability  of  its  ex- 
ercise, 362. 

Committees,  ordination  by,  in  early  part  of 
our  history,  3u7;  Committees  and  Boards, 
see  Boards. 

Common  fame,  duty  in  view  of,  465,  466;  a 
rare  and  indirect  remedy  for  irregulari- 
ties, 480. 

Common  Prayer,  see  Prayer. 

Commonwealth  of  Israel  abolished  at  advent 
of  Christ,  07. 

Communion,  duty  of  receiving,  and  taking 
part  with,  those  of  other  denominations, 
98;— Terms  of;  chapter  xii.,  §  4,218-236; 
—a..  The  Lord's  Table  for  the  Lord's  Peo- 
ple, 218;— b.,  Credible  Evidence  of 


Conversion  alone  required,  2is- 
223 ;  adoption  of  Confession  of  Faith  not 
required  of  private  members,  219;  teach- 
ing of  the  Confession  and  the  Directory  for 
worship  as  to  terms  of  communion,  220, 
238,  330, 331 ;  deliverances  of  the  Assembly 
on  same,  221 ;  New  Testament  enjoins  the 
duty  of  Christian  fellowship,  222  ;•  com- 
muning in  a  Church  does  not  sanction 
its  errors,  223, 238 ;  no  Church  has  a  right 
to  alter  the  Biblical  terms,  223; — c.  Tem- 
perance Question  as  a  term  of  communion ; 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh  censured  for  making 
sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  a  term  of 
communion,  225  ;  the  question  cannot  be 
made  a  term  of  communion,  230;  see 
Temperance  Question  ; — d.,  Mar- 
riage Question,  231-236 :  should  doctrine 
of  Confession  as  to  unlawful  marriages 
be  made  a  term  of  communion,  234; — 
Right  to  withdraw  from  the  communion 
denied  by  Assembly  (1843),  239;  but  ab* 
stinence  is  allowable  under  certain  con- 
ditions, 240;  no  one,  however,  can  cease 
to  be  a]  member  of  the  Church  except 
by  open  apostasy  or  excommunication, 
241; — Ministerial  communion:  condition 
of,  322;  distinction  between  Christian 
and  ministerial  communion,  327 ;  neither 
Christian  nor  ministerial  communion 
can  be  conditioned  on  adherence  to 
the  deliverances  of  the  Assembly,  411, 
412. 

Communion  of  Saints,  Church  considered  a» 
the,  5,  22. 

Communism,  fundamental  errors  of,  249. 

Complaints,  not  confined  to  judicial  casea. 
475,  492,  493 ;— liCgltimate  Oronnds 
of,  chapter  xvi.,  g  3,  c,  490498  : — Decision 
of  Assembly  (1844)  that  certain  decisions 
complained  of  were  not  matters  of  appeal 
or  complaint,  490;  four  different  views 
manifest  as  to  the  legitimate  grounds  of 
complaint,  490;  first  appearance  of  any 
difference  of  opinion  (was  in  1834),  491; 
the  doctrine  of  the  constitution,  492;  dif- 
ference between  appeal  and  complaint, 
493 ;  the  latter  supposes  injustice  or  irre- 
gularity of  action,  494;  refusal  to  adopt 
an  overture  not  a  grievance  in  this  sense, 
495,  496;  to  receive  a  complaint  on  this 
ground  would  work  great  injustice,  497; 
and  the  principle  would  allow  any  man 
to  force  the  Assembly  to  consider  any 
abstract  question,  498; — see  Appeals. 

Confession  of  Faith,  on  the  powers  of  synods 
and  councils,  178;  on  efficacy  of  bap- 
tism, 198 ;  on  terms  of  communion,  219, 
220,  238,  330,  331;  on  the  marriage  ques- 
tion, 504,  505  ; — Adoption  of,  not  required 
of  private  members,  219 ;  chapter  xiv.,  g  7, 


1 


INDEX. 


515 


a.  and  &.,  see  Adoption  of  Confes* 

siou;  examples  of  early  forms  of  adop- 
tion, 323;  sense  in  which  adopted  by  can- 
didates for  the  ministry,  332-335,  338-340  ; 
candidate  may  not  put  his  own  construc- 
tion on  formula  of  adoption,  318;  assent 
to  "  substance  of  doctrine  "  is  not  suffi- 
cient, 320-32C.  341,  342;  adoption  of  every 
proposition  is  not  required,  318,  326-332, 
33G-338;  in  what  sense  adopted  by  pro- 
fessors in  a  seminary  of  the  Church,  327. 

Confirmation  in  Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal 
churches,  157. 

Conflict,  between  Evangelical,  Ritual,  and 
Rationalistic  systems  in  the  Church,  39 ; 
of  laws,  the  weaker  gives  way,  233. 

Conformity  in  details  of  government  not 
made  obligatory  by  Scripture,  277. 

Congregation,  origin  of  the  individual  and 
separate,  91. 

Congregational,  theory  of  the  Church,  241 ; 
officers  in  early  New  England  churches, 
270; — see  Independency. 

Conscience,  Church  may  not  make  laws 
binding  the,  177;  evil  effects  on,  of  re- 
quiring ipsissima  verba  adoption  of 
creeds,  332  ;  nothing  contrary  to  Scripture 
can  bind  the,  405. 

Conservative  principle  of  Presbyterianism  is 
the  right  of  presbyteries  to  judge  the 
qualifications  of  their  members,  312. 

Consistories,  appointed  by  Electors  in  Ger- 
man Reformation,  112. 

Constantine,  influence  of,  as  affecting  rela- 
tion of  Church  and  State,  106. 

Constitution,  History  and  Intent,  of,  chapter 
xi.  171-lSO,  see  History,  &c.;  origin 
of,  goes  back  to  Westminster  Assembly 
through  the  Scotch  Church,  171-173; 
adoption  of  (1785-S),  174;  points  of  differ- 
ence from  Scotch  standards,  175;  revisions 
(1804  and  1821)  increased  authority  of 
higher  courts,  176;  recognises  power  of 
courts  to  make  laws,  177 ;  makes  all  pow- 
er of  Church  inhere  in  synods  and  coun- 
cils, 17»;  restricts  various  powers  of  these 
councils,  179 ;  makes  it  the  duty  of  h  igher 
courts  to  superintend  and  control  the 
lower,  180 ;  makes  Assembly  bond  of 
union  and  confidence  between  the 
churches,  188; — not  a  grant  but  a  limita- 
tion of  powers  of  the  Church  courts,  190, 
191,  354,  360,  375,  403,  405,  468 ;— does  not 
suppose  parity  of  office  among  ministers 
and  elders,  274;  does  not  sanction  the 
ultra  divine  right  theory  of  Presbyterian 
government,  278;  does  not  forbid  pri- 
mary courts  to  act  by  commissions, 
354,  355,  360;  teaching  of  as  to  appeals 
and  complaints,  474,  475,486,  487,  492-494; 
authority  of  usage  in  interpretation  of,  482. 


Contracts,  void  when  unconstitutional  392- 

394. 
Conversion,  credible    Evidence  of, 

tlie  sole    term  of  commnnlon, 

chap,  xii.,  ?  4.  6.— Our  Church  nowhere 
requires  the  adoption  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  as  a  term  of  Christian  commu- 
nion, but  teaches  the  contrary,  219 ;  only 
the  ignorant  and  scandalous  to  be 
debarred,  220;  the  Assembly  has  repeat- 
edly recognised  this  doctrine,  221;  the 
acts  of  1837  excommunicated  no  one, 
222;  communion  with  a  Church  does  not 
endorse  its  errors,  223. 

Correspondence  with  other  Churches,  chap- 
ter XV.,  g  8,-6.  454,  455. 

Councils,  decisions  of,  as  bearing  on  the  per- 
petuity  of  the  Church,  82 ;  validity  of  their 
decisions,  83;  various  councils  in  the 
Presbyterian  system,  their  nature  and 
powers,  179; — Council  of  Aries,  on  bap- 
tism by  heretics,  193;  of  Nice,  on  same, 
193;  of  Trent,  on  grounds  of  justification, 
209. 

Courts  of  the  Church,  nature  and  powers  of, 
179,  301,  302,  354,  360,  403-409 ;  possess  le- 
gislative, executive,  and  judicial  power.i, 
473;  not  analogous  to  those  of  state,  416, 
472,476;  voluntary  societies  for  missions 
and  education  of  the  ministry  encroach 
on  rights  and  duties  of,  428,  429;  unrea- 
sonable and  anomalous  to  make  lower 
courts  parties  in  appeals  and  complaints, 
457,  458 ;  see  Constitution,  General  Assem- 
bly, Powers,  Presbytery,  &c. 

Covenant,  mutual,  not  the  ground  of  subjec- 
tion to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  92; 
in  Puritan  theory  of  the  Church,  101. 

Covenants,  two  made  with  Abraham,  66. 

Covenanters,  separate  from  other  Presby- 
terians, 95. 

Cranmer,  influence  on  Prayer  Book  and  Ar- 
ticles of  Religion  of  Church  of  England, 
109;  thoroughly  Erastian,  110;  on  the  dif- 
ference between  bishop  and  presbyter, 
148. 

Creeds,  the  ''  non-natural  sense  "  subscrip- 
tion to,  318 ;  opposition  to  in  original  Sy- 
nod, 328,  341;  evil  effects  on  conscience 
of  requiring  adoption  ipsissima  verba,  332. 

Criteria  of  true  Church,  45, 138. 

Cumberland  Presbytery,  dissolved  by  Synod 
of  Kentucky,  184;  case  of,  decided  by 
commission  of  the  Synod,  359;  cut  off  for 
lowering  the  standard  of  education  for 
the  ministry,  446. 

Cunningham,  Dr.,  on  the  civil  magistrate, 
115. 

Cyprian,  on  the  unity  of  the  Church,  25;  on 
baptism  by  heretics,  193. 


516 


INDEX. 


Deaconesses  in  Apoi3tolic  Church,  278. 

Deacons  and  Elders,  relative  powers  of. 
chapter,  xii.,  §  10,    299. 

Decisions  and  Deliverances  [of  the  Assem- 
bly] on  Doctrines,  chapter  xv.,  J  4. 
a.  General  Remark,  377;— b.  Testimony 
against  Erroneous  Publications,  378-380; 
— c.  Church  Commentary  on  the  Bible, 
380-384;— when  binding,  405-407  ;— Judi- 
cial, may  confirm  or  reverse  in  part,  and 
be  expressed  in  minute  of  a  special  com- 
mittee, 499 ;  finality  of  the  Assembly's,  502 
-504. 

Declaration  and  Testimony;  Keport  en  tlie 
Preslbytery  of  liOnisville,  chap- 
ter XV.,  2  5.  c.  399-113 :— Outline  of  the  re- 
port and  the  resolutions,  400;  Dr.  Gurley's 
paper,  401 ;— Right  of  the  Assembly  to  act 
as  it  did  in  the  case :  opposing  theories 
of  the  powers  of  the  Assembly,  402 ;  first, 
this  right  flows  from  the  nature  of  Church 
courts,  403;  and  each  court  has  within  its 
Hmits  all  Church  power,  404;  limitations 
of  this  power :  (1)  it  extends  only  to  things 
ecclesiastical,  404;  (2)  limited  by  the  con- 
stitution, 405 ;  and  (3)  by  the  word  of  God, 
405;  Right  of  private  judgment  in  refer- 
ence to  thia  power,  406;  second,  this  right 
flows  from  nature  of  Assembly  as  a  court 
of  Christ,  407;  third,  it  is  analogous  to  the 
right  of  expulsion,  408 ;  fourth,  it  is  the 
right  of  self-preservation,  408;  These 
views  defended  in  1838,  408,  409;— Yet 
there  was  no  adequate  ground  for  the 
exclusion  of  the  commissioners  (1)  pe- 
nalty unduly  severe,  410;  (2)  no  important 
object  to  be  gained,  410;  (3)  Assembly 
virtually  admitted  that  the  cause  was  in- 
sufficient, 410;  (4)  tended  to  increase 
strife  and  division,  410;  and  (5)  pla?es 
these  ministers  and  churches  in  an  anom- 
alous position,  410;  no  opportunity  for 
calm  judicial  decision, 411;— Retrospect  of 
Assembly's  action,  however,  promises 
great  good  for  the  future :  first,  recog- 
nised right  of  protest  and  free  discus- 
sion, 411 ;  second,  recognised  that  adhe- 
sion to  its  own  deliverances  cannot  be 
made  a  condition  of  Christian  or  minis- 
terial communion,  411;  third,  taught 
scriptural  and  historical  doctrine  as  to 
schism,  412 ;  fourth,  same  as  to  slavery, 
413;  fifth,  took  scriptural  and  liberal 
ground  on  subject  of  Christian  union,  413. 

Definition,  of  Church,  5-7,  68,  73,  418;  by  Ro- 
manists, 67;  by  Anglicans,  68 ;— of  pres- 
bytery, 301,  302; — of  "judicial  cases," 
472,  473. 

Demission  of  the  Ministry,  chapter 
xiv.  §  10,  345-353 : — overture  of  the  Assem- 
oly  (1859)  on,  345; — ministry   an    oflice, 


346;  pertaining  to  the  Church  at  large, 
347  ;  sense  in  which  it  is  permanent,  348  ; 
essentials  of  the  right  to  exercise, 348  ; 
possibility  of  mistakes  in  judging  quali- 
fications for,  349  ;  nothing  in  the  Protes- 
tant doctrine  of,  stands  in  the  way  of  de- 
mission, 350  ;  principle  of  demigsion 
recognised  in  our  standards,  350;  duty 
and  -desirability  of  demission,  351  ;  ob- 
jections to  demission  answered,  352,  353. 

Denominations,  grounds  for  existence  of, 
93-95;  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  govern- 
ment the  most  fertile  cause  of,  95  ; — Re- 
lative duties  of:  union,  when  grounds  of 
separation  are  inadequate  or  unscriptu- 
ral,  96 ;  mutual  recognition,  97  ;  free  com- 
munion, 98;  recognise  validity  of  each 
other's  acts  of  discipline,  98 ;  and  of  ordi- 
nation, 99 ;  non-interference,  100 ; — rea- 
sonableness of  maintaining  denomina- 
tional integrity,  428  ;  diversity  of,  in  re- 
lation to  the  public  schools,  451,  452. 

Den's  Theology,  on  use  of  water  in  baptism, 
and  the  preceding  ceremonies,  196 ;  on 
efficacy  of  baptism,  198. 

Deposition  from  the  ministry,  how  different 
from  demission,  350. 

Description,  scriptural,  of  the  Church ;  body  of 
Christ,  15 ;  temple  and  family  of  God  and 
flock  of  Christ,  16;  bride  of  Christ,  17. 

Dickinson,  President,  opposed  to  all  creeds, 
328,  341. 

Directory  for  worship,  teaching  of  as  to  terms 
of  communion,  220;  on  imposition  of 
hands  at  ordination  of  ministers,  286. 

Discipline,  duty  of  different  denominations 
to  recognise  validity  of  each  other's  acts 
of,  98;  right  of,  belongs  to  Church  as 
means  of  preserving  truth,  103;  case  of 
immediate  discipline  by  Assembly  on  a 
reference,  183;  infant  members  subjects 
of,  chapter  xii.,  g  3,  215-217;— see  chapter 
xvi.,  and  Book  of. 

Dismission  of  Members  to  other 
Clinrclies,  chapter  xii.,  g  5,  230-239:  — 
importance  of  the  question,  237;  two 
views  of  Christian  communion,  237;  evi- 
dence of  piety  the  only  condition  of  our 
standards,  238;  others  regard  communing 
as  witnessing  for  the  doctrines  of  the  de- 
nomination, 238. 

Disobedience  to  civil  and  ecclesiastical  laws, 
when  justifiable,  405. 

Dispersion,  Church  existing  in  the,  61 ;  does 
not  extinguish  Church,  76. 

Disposal  of  the  members  of  a  dissolved  pres- 
bytery, chapter  xv.,  g  5,  a.,  384,  409. 

Disputed  elections,  chapter  xv.,  g  1,  b.,  365. 

Dissensions  on  such  subjects  as  tefnperanfO, 
slavery,  etc.,  arise  from  neglect  of  elo- 


INDEX. 


517 


mentary  principles  of  ethics,  226;  evil 
effects  of  it,  227. 

Dissent  from  Assembly's  deliverances,  how 
treated,  412. 

Dissolution  of  a  presbytery,  effect  on  status  of 
members,  384,  409. 

Divine  Right;  healthful  development  of  the 
Church  determined  by  fixed  laws  in  the 
Bible,  122;  true  theory  of  the  divine  right 
of  Presbyterianism,  123-125,  440,  441 ;  in- 
consistency, impracticability  and  intole- 
rableness  of  theory,  that  the  Scriptures 
prescribe  the  details  of  Church  govern- 
ment, 131-133,  440,  441 ;— of  ruling  elder- 
ship, 263;  ultra  theory  of,  275,  280. 

Divisions  in  the  Church,  grounds  of :  exelu- 
eioa  of  Papists,  93;  of  Prelatists,  Presby- 
terians, Independents,  and  Baptists,  95  ; 
due  more  to  differences  about  govern- 
ment than  doctrine,  95;  when  justifiable, 
96. 

Divorce  laws,  province  of  Church  in  respect 
to,  104. 

Doctrines,  essential  and  non-essential  to  ex- 
istence of  a  true  Church,  70,  139, 207 ;  dif- 
ferences as  to,  not  inseparable  barriers 
of  Church  union,  95,  96;  substance  and 
form  of,  cannot  be  separated,  320,  324 ; 
difference  between  fundamental  doctrines 
and  the  explanations  of  them,  336-338; 
the  Assembly's  deliverances  and  decisions 
on,  chapter  xv.,  g  4,  377-384;  see  General 
Assembly. 


'Educatiok  for  the  ministry,  necessity  of  tho- 
rough, 446;  duty  of  the  Church  to  give 
religious  instruction,  103,  449;  teaching 
of  family,  Sunday-school  and  pastor  inade- 
quate, 450 ;  failure  of  various  plans  to 
meet  the  difficulty  arising  from  diversity 
of  sects  in  the  public  schools,  451 ;  objec- 
tions to  the  theory  of  mere  secular  educa- 
tion in  these  schools,  452 ;  advantages  of 
parochial  schools,  453;  question  of  their 
support  not  formidable,  454. 

Edward  VI.,  relation  of  Church  and  state 
under,  109. 

Effects  of  Puritan  theory  on  the  development 
of  the  Church  in  New  England,  101. 

'cKKATjffia,  meaning  of,  9,  205. 

Elder,  Ruling;  a  layman,  127,  294;  according 
to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  all  Re- 
formed Churches,  128;  inferior  in  power 
and  authority  to  ministers,  130;  distin- 
guished from  presbyter  by  Calvin,  130 ; 
representative  of  the  people,  262;  office 
of,  as  defined  in  Form  of  Government 
and  standards  of  Scotch  Church,  263,  264; 
power  of,  determined  by  representative 
character,  265,  407 ;  never  called  bishop 


or  presbjrter  in  our  standards,  265;  not 
entrusted  with  ministerial  powers,  206; 
of  different  order  and  office  from  minis- 
ters, 273,  343;  constitution  does  not  sup- 
pose parity  of  office  with  that  of  minis- 
ters, 274 ;  place  in  the  constitutional  the- 
ory of  thedivine  right  of  Presbyterianism, 
280;  none  mentioned  in  Church  of  Anti- 
och,  283  ;  question  as  to  the  distinguish- 
ing characteristic  of  primitive  elder  left 
undetermined  by  our  constitution,  284; 
annually  elected  in  early  Church  of 
Scotland,  285 ;  right  of,  as  member  of 
session  restricted,  286 ;  not  a  constituent 
member  of  presbytery,  286,  301-305;— At 
ordination  of  ministers  elders 
have  no  right  to  join  in  the  imposition  of 
hands,  285-294 :  shown  by  fallacy  of  oppo- 
site theory,  285  ;  by  intention  of  framera 
of  constitution,  286 ;  by  language  of  con- 
stitution, 286 ;  by  restricted  rights  of  el- 
ders in  session  and  presbytery,  286;  by 
uniform  practice  of  the  Church,  287  ;  the 
right  denied  by  Assembly  (1843),  chapter 
xiii.  ?6,  288-294:  —  correctness  of  this 
decision  seen  in  fact  that  general  sense 
of  constitution  must  determine  meaning 
of  particular  words,  289 ;  that  "  hands  of 
the  presbytery  "  means  hands  of  preach- 
ing presbyters  in  cotemporary  writings, 
290;  and  was  so  understood  by  the  fram- 
ers  of  our  constitution,  290 ;  that  it  is 
consistent  with  teaching  of  standards  as 
to  nature  of  the  act  of  ordination,  290; 
and  with  that  as  to  nature  of  office  of 
ruling  elder,  290;  that  right  of  ministers 
to  ordain  is  not  derived  from  their  mem- 
bership in  presbytery,  292;  that  it  is  in 
accord  with  the  usage  of  the  Church,  293; 
and  that  the  opposite  theory  destroys 
the  distinctive  character  of  office  of 
ruling  elder,  294; — Significance  of  laying 
on  of  hands, at  ordination  of,  295; — In- 
stallation not  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  office,  297; — Rights  of,  chapter  xiii. 
§5,  see  Rigbts  of  Rnling^  EIdf>r8  ;— 
in  French  Church  the  elders  supply  the 
place  ofministers  in  latter's  absence,  299; 
— Relative  powers  of  elders  and  deacons, 
chapter  xiii.  §10.  299;— Elders  not  an  es- 
sential element  of  presbytery,  301-305  ;— 
Elder  who  has  ceased  to  act  admitted  as 
commissioner  to  Assembly  (1835),  366  ; 
irregularity  of  election  does  not  invali- 
dateordinationof  elders,  367;  see  Rlg^lits 
of  Raling:  Elders,  warrant  and 
Theory  of  Ruling  Eldership. 
Eldership,  the  scriptural  divine  right  foun- 
dation for  the  office,  125;  two  radically 
different  theories  of,  127;  —  Warrant 
and  Tbeory  of,  chapter  xiiL  1 4.  262- 


518 


INDEX. 


ZJl:— first,  scriptural  warrant  for  elders 
as  representatives  of  the  people,  262 ; 
teaching  of  standards,  263;  second,  great 
honor  of  the  office,  263 ;  third,  sure  and 
satisfactory  foundation  for  it.  264 ;  fourth, 
great  and  controlling  power  of  the  office, 
264 ;  fifth,  our  standards  determine 
nature  and  extent  of  this  power  :  (1) 
called  "governments," 264;  and  (2)  elders 
declared  to  be  representatives  of  the 
people,  205;  sixth,  this  view  everywhere 
asserted  and  assumed  in  the  standards, 
266,  291;  seventh,  the  opposite  theory  is 
inconsistent  with  standards  and  subver- 
sion of  Presbyterianism :  (1)  merges 
ministry  and  eldership  into  one,  267 ;  (2) 
makes  minister's  right  in  presbytery 
dependent  on  his  election  to  a  pastorate, 
267  ;  (3)  makes  all  elders  ministers,  268, 
281,  294 ;  (4)  inconsistent  with  chapter  of 
Form  of  Government  on  ordination  of 
ruling  elders,  269 ;  (5)  is  a  modified  form 
of  prelacy,  270;  and  (6),  on  the  other 
hand,  lends  to  Congregationalism,  270; 
—Ultra  divine  right  theory  of  eldership 
objected  to,  267-270,  280;  abolishes  office 
by  identifying  it  with  ministry,  294. — In- 
stallation not  essential  to  validity  of  elder- 
ship, chapter  xiii.  §8.  '295-298,  see  In- 
stallation, &o. 

Emperors,  Roman,  relation  of  Church  and 
State  under,  107. 

Slectlon  of  Pastor,  who  may  TOte 
in,  chapter  xiii.  2  2,  244-247  :— variety  of 
usages,  244 ;  flows  from  confusion  of 
ideas  as  to  what  is  a  Church,  244;  all 
members  of  the  Church  have  not  the 
same  privilege,  245;  Independent  theory 
restricts  right  of  choice  to  communi- 
cants, 245 ;  others  say  only  baptized 
persons  have  a  right  to  vote,  246;  the 
teaching  of  our  standards,  246. 

Electors,  in  German  Reformation,  called  to 
assume  executive  power  in  the  Church 
by  the  people,  112. 

England,  course  of  Reformation  in,  109 ; 
eflfeeted  by  civil  power,  109;  King  became 
head  of  the  Church,  110 ;  different  theories 
to  justify  this  entire  subordination  of 
Church  to  State,  110;  unlawful  mar- 
riages in,  233. 

England,  Church  of,  Romish  character  'of 
liturgy,  160;  doctrine  of,  aa  to  valid  minis- 
try, 202  ;  —  Charcli  of  England 
and  FreBbyterian  orders,  chapter 
ix.,  134-156:— Anglican  Church  guilty  of 
schism  m  not  recognising  validity  of 
orders  of  other  Churches,  134;  its  un- 
questioned animus  and  status  as  a  body, 
135;  evil  consequences  of  making  Church 
an  external  society  and  prelatical  ordi- 


nation essential  to  the  ministry,  136 ; — 
Three  fundamental  principles  of  Protes- 
tantism :  first,  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
Church,  137  ;  second,  the  criteria  of  a 
true  visible  Church:  (1)  profession  of  the 
true  religion  and  association  for  its 
maintenance,  138;  (2)  limitation  of  this 
profession  to  doctrines  essential  to  'sal- 
vation, 139  ;  (3)  what  the  recognition  of 
such  societies  as  Cliurches  involves, 
140;  third,  the  nature  of  the  ministry:  (1) 
distinct  from  laity  only  in  office  and  not 
by  virtue  of  inward  grace,  141  ;  (2)  minis-. 
ters  not  priests,  141 ;  (3)  all  Church  power 
vests,  not  in  clergy,  but  in  Church  as  a 
whole,  142 ;  which  is  neither  Quakerism 
nor  Independency,  143;  for  the  inward 
call  and  the  due  authentication  of  it  are 
both  required,  144;  hence  ministry  is  a 
divine  institution,  145 ;  and  the  call  to  it 
has  two  elements,  the  essential  and  the 
circumstantial,  146;  —  neglect  of  these 
distinctive  principles  has  led  the  Angli- 
can Church  into  its  present  anti-protes- 
tant  position,  147 ;— Validity  of  Presby- 
terian orders  were  formerly  recognised 
in  Church  of  England:  shown  (1)  by  the 
opinions  of  early  bishops  and  other 
leaders,  147-154;  (2;  by  the  Articles  and 
other  Formularies,  154;  and  (3;  by  the 
early  practice  of  the  Church,  155,156. 
Episcopacy,  in  Scotland,  50;  not  in  itself  ex- 
clusive or  unprotestant,  135;  indebted  to 
usus  loquendi  of  title  "bishop,"  243,  269; 
Presbyterians  have  always  contended 
for  parochial  in  opposition  to  diocesan, 
274 ;  see  Anglican,  and  Eng^Iand, 
Chnrcb  of. 
Erasing  names  from  roll  of  membership  in 

charches,  power  of  session,  191. 
Erastianism,  in  England,  101;   of  early  re- 
formers, 110;  inconsistent  with  New  Tes- 
tament, 117. 
Erroneous  Publications,  Testimony  against, 

chapter  xv.,  §  4.  6.,  378-380. 
Errors,  in  matters  of  faith.  Church  not'secure 
from,  69 ;  freedom  from  not  necessary  to 
salvation,  70;  no  Church  has  been  free 
from,  72;  see  Chnrcb,  Perpetuity 
of;  errors  of  a  Church  are  not  sanctioned 
by  communing  with  it,  223. 
Evangelical  theory  of  the  Chnrcb, 
40-47:  distinction  between  visible  and 
invisible  Church,  41;  Holy  Spirit  the  es- 
sential bond  of  unity,  42 ;  necessity  for  re- 
stricted organizations,  43;  sense  in  which 
Church  is  catholic,  44;  this  theory  not  too 
latitudinarian,  45 ;  nor  too  difficult  of 
practical  determination,  45;  out  of  this 
visible  Church  there  is  no  ordinary  pos- 
sibility  of  salvation,  40;  —  this   system 


INDEX. 


519 


gives  the  Chnrch  all  power  in  recognis- 
ing a  ministrj',  202. 
Evangelist,  ordination  of,  when  proper,  315. 
Essentials,  of  valid  baptism,  192-195;  distinc- 
tion between  essentials  _and  accidentals, 
297. 
Ethics,  neglect  of  elementary  principles  of, 
gives  rise  to  dissensions  on  such  subjects 
as  temperance,   slavery,    etc.,  226;    evil 
effects  of  this  neglect,  227. 
Examination,  rights  of  presbyteries  to  ex- 
amine   applicants   for   admission     from 
other  presbyteries,  307-313. 
Exclusion, — of  commissioners  pending  inves- 
tigation, chapter  xv.,  I  1.    e.,  368-?70; — 
Exelnslon  of  tbe   Synod  of  the 
'Western  Reserve,  chapter  xv.,  g  5 
6.,  385-399:— Argument  in  Assembly  (1S37) 
against   the    exclusion,   38G-3S9; — Argu- 
ment in  support  of  it;  first,  neither  in  in- 
tention nor  in  fact  an  act  of  discipline' 
389;  for  the  resolution  simply  declares 
that  the  Synod  is  not  a  regular  portion  of 
our  Church,  3S9 ;  and  it  is  notorious  that 
the   churches    within    its    bounds  were 
formed  on  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
390;  second,  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan 
dissolved      the     connection     of     these 
churches  with    the  Assembly,    390;   for 
Plan  of  Union  was  not  of  the  nature  of  a 
contract,  391,  392;  but  an  unconstitutional 
declaration,    and    hence    void,    393,  394; 
third,  this  authorizes  the  exclusion  of  the 
Synod :  (1)  because  it  is  not  composed  of 
constitutional  presbyteries,  395;  (2)  but 
almost  entirely  of  associations  of  minis- 
ters, 396; /ouH/i,  the  Assembly's  right  to 
declare  the  fact  rests,  (1)  on  its  compe- 
tence as  a  judicial  body,  396,  397 ;  and  (2) 
on  right  of  every  Church  to  decide  whe- 
ther its  own  terms  of  membership  are 
complied  with,  30S;  fifth,  expediency  of 
the  measure,  398,  3^0 ;— Exclusion  of  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  and   Testimony ; 
right    of  the    Assembly  (1866;   to  take 
this  action  seen,  first,  in  the  nature  of 
the    power    of    Church  courts,    403-107; 
second,  in  the  nature  of  the  Assembly  as  a 
court  of  Christ,  407  ;  third,  it  is  analogous 
to  the  right  of  expulsion,  40S;  fourth,  it  is 
the  right  of  self-preservation,  408,  409; 
hui  fifth,  there  were  no  adequate  grounds 
for  the  exclusion  in  this  case,  410 ;  and  the 
mode  of  it  was  highly  objectionable,  411. 
Executive    power,     of    Assembly,   416;     of 
Church  courts,  473;  executive  acts  may 
be  appealed  from,  477,  478;  may  become 
subjects  of  judicial  investigation,  note  494 
Expediency,  rule  of  must  be  variable,  228; 

each  man  must  decide  for  himself,  229. 
Ex-erience,  agreement  of  religious,  in  all 


ages  and  places,  91;  teaches  unfitness  of 
civil  magistrates  to  interfere  in  Church 
affairs,  118. 
Expulsion,  Assembly's  right  of,  408. 

Faith,  manifested  by  works  makes  true 
Church  visible,  56;  Church  not  secured 
from  errors  in,  C9 ;  freedom  from  all  errors 
in  not  essential  to  salvation,  70;  unity  of,  . 
promoted  by  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
90;  authority  of  the  Church  as  to  matters 
of,  177 ;  profession  of  the  true  faith  essen- 
tial to  constitute  a  Church,  206;— see  Con- 
fession of  Faith. 
False  theories  of  the  Church,  evil  tendenciea 

of,  33-35. 
Family,  religious  instruction  in,  inadequate, 

450. 
Farel's  call  to  the  ministry,  87, 144. 
Fellowship,  ^fruit  of  the  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit,  91 ;  duty  of  observing  between  de- 
nominations,   98;     duty    of   recognising, 
frequently  enjoined  in  New  Testament, 
222. 
Finality  of  the  Assembly's   Jadl« 
cial  Decisions,  chapter  xvi.,  §  5,  500- 
507; — A  complaint  that  the   synod  sus- 
tained the  action  of  his  presbytery  in  re- 
storing Mr.  McQueen  in  accordance  with 
the  judicial  decision  of     the   Assembly 
(1845),  500, 501 ;— Assembly  of  1847  resolves 
not  to  sustain  the  complaint,  501 ;  on  the 
grounds  that,  first,  the  precise  question 
had  been  decided  in  1845  by  the  Assem- 
bly, 502;  second,  that  was  a  judicial  deci- 
sion and  of  necessity  final,  502;  for  it  was 
the  judgment  of  the  final  court  in  the  de- 
cision of  a  trial,  503;  third,  even  if  un- 
constitutional the  finality  is  not  affected, 
504 ;  but,  fourth,  the  decision  was  consti- 
tutional, 504-507. 
Foreign  Churches,  rule  of  old  Synod  con- 
cerning ministers  from,  182 
Foreordination,  difference  between  the  doc- 
trine and  the  explanations  of  it,  337. 
Form  of  Government,  how  adopted,  174;  de- 
finition of  office  of  ruling  elder,  203 ;  on 
ordination  of  ruling  elders,  209;  on  power 
of  clerks  in  formation  of  the  roll  of  As- 
sembly, 308;  see  Constitution. 
Form  of  Worship,  not  prescribed  in  Scrip- 
ture, 159. 
France,  infidelity  of  Romi.«h  Church  in,  72. 
French  Church,  on  validity  of  Romish  bap- 
tism, 204;  elders  in,  supply  minister''s 
place  in  his  absence,  299. 
Fruits  of  the  system  condemn  Ritualism,  54. 


Geneeai  Assembly,  introductory  notes  to  the 


620 


INDEX. 


>  ! 


annual  articles  on,  in  Princeton  Review 
(1S35)  and  (1837),  3,  4;  debate  on  Presby- 
terianism  at   Rochester,  (1860),  118,  (see 

Presbyterianism) ;  nature     of, 

180,  465;  questions  concerning  commis- 
sioners, 304-373;  right  of  clerks  to  de- 
cide as  to  the  formation  of  the  roll,  308- 
370;  debates  will  not  be  shortened  by 
having  a  small  body,  371 ;  a  large  body 
worth  all  its  costs,  372  ;  infelicity  in  man- 
ner of  conducting  business,  373,  457 ; 
unsuitable  for  a  court  of  appeals,  376, 
456,  498;  correspondence  with  other 
Churches,  454,  455;  finality  of  its  judicial 
decisions,'50-i-504,  (see  Finality,  etc.) ; 

Decisions  and  Deliverances :  tendency 

to  hasty  decisions,  192;  deliverances  as 
to  terms  of  communion,  221,  225;  on  doc- 
trines, chap.  XV.  g  4.,  377-384 ;  when  bind- 
ing, 405-407,411;  evils  of  contradictory 
decisions,  486; Powers  of:  1*50;  ex- 
amples of  legislative  and  executive 
power,  182-188,  416 ;  to  divide  or  dissolve 
presbyteries,  183,  407;  judges  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members,  chapter  xv.  g  1.  a., 
364;  commissioners  excluded  from,  pend- 
ing investigation,  chap.  xv.  §  1.  e.,  368- 
370,  also,  407,  408,  469,  470,  (see.Exclusion, 
Declaration  and  Testimony);  power  to 
act  by  commission,  chap.  xv.  §  3. 374-377  ; 

.:;:*  inherent  powers  of,  375  ;  power  of  expul- 
sion, 403 ;  of  restoration,  415,  416 ;  to  cite 
judicatories,  4G5-470,  (see  Citation  of 
Jadicatories) ;  original  jurisdiction 
of,  467,  468  ;  to  correct  irregularities  in 
presbyteries,  467 ;  the  powers  of,  not 
granted,  but  limited,  by  the  constitution, 
468 ;  see  also  Constitution  and  Powers. 

Geneva,  apostasy  of  Church  of,  72. 

Germany,  course  of  Reformation  in,  112. 

Gifts  of  the  Spirit  determine  orders  and  oflS- 
ees  in  the  Church,  123;  see  Elders,  Gov- 
ernment, Holy  Spirit,  Ministers. 

Gnosticism,  39. 

Goode,  W.-re view  of  his  book,  "  a  vindication 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  validity 
of  the  orders  of  the  Scotch  and  Foreign 
non-Episcopal  Churches,"  134-156. 

Government  of  the  Church,  motive  of  organi- 
zation found  in  indwelling  of  Spirit  and 
in  man's  social  nature,  91;  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to,  the  fertile  cause  of  divisions 
in  the  Church,  95,  90 ;  falsely  identified 
with  State,  111  ;  wide  liberty  allowed  in 
Kew  Testament  as  to  details  of,  131 ;  en- 
trusted to  the  rulers  and  not  to  the  mem- 
bers  of  the  Church,  277; ultra  divine 

right  theory  of:  118;  inconsistent,  131; 
impracticable,  132;  and  intolerable,  133; 
untenable,  275, 276  ;  because  (1.)  of  the  ab- 
sence of  specific  command,  277 ;  (2.)  apos- 


tles did  not  adopt  one  unvarying  plan  of 
organization,  277 ;  and  (3.)  Church  has  al- 
ways acted  on  different  principle,  278,  (see 
also  Organization) ;  true  theory  of  the  di- 
vine right  of,  440;  objections  to  the  ultra 
theory,  441 ;  see  Constitution,  From  of 
Government. 

"Governments,"  scriptural  designation,  of 
ruling  elders,  264. 

Grounds,  of  subjection  to  authority  of  Church, 
92 ;  for  existence  of  divisions  in  the 
Cliurch,  93-C5,  428 ;  for  separation  from 
state,  116;  of  complaint,  see  Com- 
plaints, liCgitiiuate  Oroauds  of. 


"Hands  of  the  Presbytery"  in  ordination  of 
ministers  refers  only  to  preaching  pres- 
byters, 290;  Significance  of  Laying-on  off, 
chapter  xiii.  295. 

Henry  VIII.  made  himself  head  of  the 
Church,  109. 

Heresy,  heretical  teachings  of  the  visible 
Church,  37;  prevalence  of,  as  testified  by 
Jerome  and  Athanasius,  82;  by  Vincent 
Lirinensis,  83;  opposing  views.as  to  vali- 
dity of  baptism  by  heretics,  193. 

Hierarchy,  the  Christian  Church  not  a,  120. 

Hilary,  83. 

Hill,  Principal ;  on  the  powers  of  the  Scotch 
Assembly,  172,  409  ;  on  the  Judicial  power 
of  the  Church,  473;  as  to  what  kind  of 
decisions  are  subject  to  appeal  and  com- 
plaint, 475. 

History  and  Intent  of  Constltn- 
tion,  chapter  xi.,  171-189  :— Main  points 
in  "A  Review  of  the  Leading  Measures  of 
the  Assembly  oflS37;  by  a  member  of 

the^New    York    Bar,"    171; Original 

form  of  government  identical  with  that  of  the 
Scotch  Church,  171 ;  the  "  Adopting  Act " 
of  original  Synod,  172;  ratification  at 
union  of  the  two  Synods,  173; — Subsequent 
modifications  left  essseyitial  principles  un- 
changed :  adoption  of  Form  of  Govern- 
ment and  Book  of  Discipline  (1788),  174; 
points  of  difference  from  Scotch  Church, 
175;   alterations    (of  1804  and   1821),  176; 

Powers    of    the    Church    Courts:     (1.) 

Synods  and  Assembly  not  merely  courts 
of  review,  177;  (2.)  power  inherent  in 
them,  178 ;  powers  of  synods  and  councils, 
179;  of  General  Assembly,  180;  (3.)  uni- 
form practice  of  the  American  Church, 
181-188 ;  (4.)  essential  to  distinctive  cha- 
racter of  the  Church,  188,  189. 

Holiness  as  an  attribute  of  the  Church,  17 ; 
promised  to  the  Church.  32. 

Holy  Spirit,  the  Church  the  organ  of,  36  ;  es- 
sential bond  of  unity  of  the  Church,  42, 
90 ;  consequences  of  his  indwelling,  90, 


INDEX. 


521 


91 ;  source  of  attributes  and  prerogatives 
of  the  Church,  1:^0 ;  distributes  gifts  for 
office  in  the  Church,  123;  inward  call  of, 
constitutes  a  man  a  minister,  141 ;  source 
of  power  and  of  qualifications  to  exercise 
this  power  in  the  Church,  254;  qualifies 
for  the  ministrj',  348;  see  Elders,  Govern- 
ment, Ministers,  People,  Powers. 

Hooker  on  validity  of  non-Episcopal  ordina- 
tion, 152. 

Humphrey  on  mode  of  withdrawal  from  the 
Ciiurch,  239. 

Hymns  of  the  Church,  prove  its  perpetuity,  86. 


Idea — -of  the  Church,  see  Church,  Idea 
of  tlie ; — true  idea  of  Presbyterianism 
involves  parity  of  clergy,  powers  of  the 
people  and  unity  of  the  Church,  125. 

Identity  of  office,  what  constitutes,  128. 

Imposition  of  hands,  elders  no  right  to  join 
in,  at  ordination  of  ministers,  271-287,  288 
294,  (see  Rig^hts  of  Ruliugp  Elders 
and  Elders  at  Ordination  of  Min- 
isters); teaching  of  Directory  of  Wor- 
ship, 286 ;  importance  of,  287  ;  significance 
of,  295. 

Inability,  difference  between  the  doctrine 
and  the  explanations  of  it,  337. 

Incest,  different  degrees  of,  504,  506. 

Indelibility  of  o.-ders,  Romish  theory  of, 
347 ;  Protestant  theory,  348. 

Independence  of  Church  before  Constantine, 
106. 

Independency,  impairs  unity  of  Chur-^h,  94, 
an  essential  principle  of  Puritanism,  101; 
unscriptural,  143;  as  to  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  discipline,  216;  as  to  the  electors 
of  a  pastor,  245 ;  as  to  the  support  of  the 
ministry,  252;  cannot  consistently  admit 
the  ordination  of  missionaries,  256,  347 
as  to  permanence  of  ministry,  347. 

Infant  Members  Subjects  of  Disci- 
pline, chapter  xii.  g  3.,  215-217:  — 
Three  views  in  committee  on  revision  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  215;  objections 
to  the  view  that  only  those  who  have 
professed  their  faith  are  proper  subjects 
of  judicial  process,  216 ;  means  of  repent- 
ance may  be  used  with  the  unconverted 
217. 

In  Favor  of  a  Commission  to  try  appeals  and 
*omplaints,  498. 

Inherent  power  of  primary  judicatories,  354, 
360,408;  see  Constitution,  Courts  General 
Assembly,  Presbytery,  Powers,  Session, 
Synod. 

Installation  not  essential  to  validity  of  elder- 
ship, 29.5-298: — question  brought  before 
Assembly  (1856),  295 ;  report  on,  296 ;  dis- 


tinction between  essentials  and  acciden- 
tals, 297. 

"Institution  of  a  Christian  Man"  (1737),  on 
parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  147, 148. 

Intention  as  essential  to  valid  baptism,  195; 
teaching  of  Rome,  197. 

Interpretation,  general  sense  determines  the 
meaning  of  particular  words,  289. 

Invalid  and  irregular,  distinction  between, 
232,  233, 306, 505. 

Invisible  Church,  Protestants  emphasize  doc- 
trine of  the,  137;  see  Church,  visibili- 
ty  of  the. 

Ireland,  how  Romish  Church  in,  supports  her 
clergy,  251. 

Irenaeus,  on  unity  of  the  Church,  25. 

Irregularities,  mode  and  power  of  correcting, 
465-469. 

Irresponsibility  of  voluntary  societies,  432- 
434. 

Isolation  of  the  Anglican  Church,  135. 

Jackson,  Dr.,  on  the  visibility  of  the  Church, 
56. 

Jerome,  on  prevalence  of  heresy,  82;  on  differ- 
ence between  bishop  and  presbyter,  150. 

Jewell,  Bishop;  on  parity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 150. 

Jewish  Church,  apostasy  of,  79. 

John,  St.,  teaching  as  to  visibility  of  the 
Church,  60. 

Johns,  Chancellor,  on  nature  of  office  of  rul- 
ing elder,  291. 

Judicatories,  inherent  powers  of  primary, 
354,  360;  see  Constitution,  Courts,  Ses- 
sion, Presbytery,  Synod,  General  Assem- 
bly, and  Citation  of  Judicatories. 

Judicial  cases;  baptized  non-professors  are 
subjects  of  judicial  process,  216 ;  power  of 
primary  Church  courts  to  determine  ju- 
dicial cases  by  commissions,  353-362 
need  of  commission  of  Assembly  for  trial 
of,  376,  498 ;  definition  of  the  term,  472, 
473;  judicial  power  of  Church  courts,  473; 
not  limited  to  investigation  of,  or  deci- 
sion on,  judicial  acts,  474,  477 ;  decision 
of,  may  confirm  or  reverse  in  part  and  be 
expressed  in  minute  of  a  special  com- 
mittee, 499;  Assembly's  decisions  final, 
502-504;  definition  of  a  judicial  decision, 
503. 

Jurisdiction,  right  of  presbyteries  to  judge 
qualifications  of  members  does  not  give 
rise  to  conflicts  of,  313;  original,  of  As- 
sembly, 415,  see  Courts,  General  Assem- 
bly, Powers. 


KoXeoi,  scriptural  usage  to  designate  the  ef* 
fectually  called,  11. 


I 


522 


INDEX. 


KaTa<TapKa  and  Karairveviia, Paul's  distinction 

between,  59,  66. 
Keys,  power  of,  Protestant  doctrine,  37, 142. 
kAtjtoi,  used  only  of  true  believers  in  New 

Testament,  10,  205. 

Laity,  how  distinct  from  clergy  in  Protestant 
doctrine,  141. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  39. 

Laws,  scriptural,  to  determine  the  organiza- 
tion and  government  of  the  Church,  122; 
Church  may  not  malie  laws  binding  the 
conscience,  177 ;  desire  of  giving  pri- 
vate opinions  the  force  of  laws,  237. 

Laying-on  of  Hands,  significance  of,  295. 

Laymen,  sense  in  which  ruling  elders  are, 
127,  130,  294. 

Lee,  Arelibishop  of  Yorli,  on  difference  be- 
tween bishops  and  presbyters,  148. 

Length  of  Study  before  ordination,  chapter 
xiv.  g  4,  314. 

Licensure  of  other  tlian  Presbyterian  bodies 
not  to  be  approved,  rule  of  old  Synod 
(1765),  182. 

Legislative  powers  of  Church  courts,  178-189, 
473 ;  see  Courts  and  Powers. 

legitimate  Orounds  of  Complaint, 
see  Complaints. 

Limitations,  of  right  of  people  in  government 
of  Church  do  not  impair  that  right,  123  ; 
of  ministerial  powers,  304;  of  powers  of 
Church  courts,  404,  405. 

Iiitany,  excellence  of,  161. 

Liturgies,  theory  of  Presbyterianism  opposed 
to  the  use  of,  158 ;  compulsory  use  of,  in- 
consistent with  Christian  liberty,  159;  in- 
adequacy of,  159;  Romisli  character  of 
English  liturgy,  160 ;  attempt  to  force  the 
use  of  English  liturgy  on  the  people,  161 ; 
-Advantages  of  a  carefully  compiled  litur- 
gy for  optional  use  :  elevate  and  improve 
character  of  public  worship,  162;  especi- 
ally in  public  prayer,  163;  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  164;  and  in  con- 
ducting marriages  and  funerals,  165 ; 
supply  proper  forms  for  occasions  when 
no  minister  is  at  hand,  e.  g.  in  army  and 
navy,  166.  such  a  liturgy  neither  unde- 
sirable nor  impossible,  167  ;  see  Presby* 
terian  liitursies. 

Lollards,  85. 

Lord's  Supper,  for  Lord's  people,  98,  218  ;  ad- 
vantage of  a  liturgy  in  celebration  of, 
105;  admission  to,  not  a  right  of  all  who 
are  proper  subjects  of  discipline,  217;  ab- 
stinence from  allowable  under  certain 
conditions,  240;  occasion  in  early  Church 
of  contributing  to  support  of  ministry, 
250. 

liOnisville,  Report  on  Presbytery 
of,  see  Declaration  and  Testimony. 


Luther,  where  Protestant  Church  was  before  ■ 

Lutlier,  87 ;  Luther  on  power  of  the  Keys, 

142. 
Lutheran  Church,  relation  of  Church   and 

State,  112,  113;  on  baptism  by  heretics, 

194. 

Magistkate,  civil ;  relation  to  the  Church, 
106-108;  112,113;  Turretin's  theory,  il4; 
practice  of  Scotch  Church,  114;  in  early 
New  England  Church,  115 ;  may  not  in- 
terfere in  affairs  of  Church,  116 ;  teaching 
of  New  Testament,  117 ;  experience  shows 
his  unfitness  for  interference  in  Church 
affairs,  118 ;  "  Adopting  Act "  took  excep- 
tion to  clause  of  Confession  concerning, 
no^e  172;  difference  between  Scotch  and 
American  Churches  as  to,  174. 

Manner  of  conducting  business  in  the  As- 
sembly infelicitous,  373,  457. 

Manning,  Henry  Edward,  38. 

Marks,  only  essential,  of  a  true  Church,  45, 
138. 

Marriage,  civil  laws  of,  province  of  Church 
in  respect  to,  104;— Marriage  Ques- 
tion in  relation  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  xii.  J  4.,  d., 
231-236.— overtures  to  Assembly  (1843)  to 
amend  Confession,  231 ;  but  marriages 
there  condemned  may  not  be  invalid, 
232  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession 
should  not  be  made  a  term  of  commun- 
ion,|234;  hence  no  need  of  amendment, 
235.— Distinction  between  irregular  and 
invalid  marriages,  297,  505  ;  doctrine  of 
Confession  not  to  be  made  a  term  of 
communion,  332 ;  different  degrees  of 
incest,  504;  the  consistent  course  for  the 
Church,  506. 

McQueen,  Rev.  Archibald,  question  of  his 
restoration,  414-417  ;  of  the  finality  of  the 
decision  to  restore,  500-  607. 

Members, — of  Assembly,  Assembly  judges 
the  qualifications  of,  364-370,  see  Com- 
missioners ;  —  of  the  Church  ;  Church 
visible  in  its  living  members,  73;  of  a 
particular  Church  also  members  of  the 
Church  universal,  92  ;  right  of  session  to 
erase  names  of,  from  roll,  190,  191 ;  all 
baptized  persons  are,  215 ;  infant  mem- 
bers subjects  of  discipline,  215-217  (see 
Infant  &c.) ;  not  required  to  adopt 
Confession  of  Faith,  219:  dismission  of 
those  who  desire  to  join  other  denomi- 
nations, 238;  Right  of,  to  with- 
draw from  the  '  commnnion, 
chapter  xii.  ?  6.,  239-242 :  — denied  by 
Assembly  (1848),  239 ;  abstinence  from 
communion  allowable  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, 240;  but  no  one  can  with- 
'raw  from  the  Church  except  by  open 


INDEX. 


523 


apostasy  or  excommunication,  241 ;  — All 
have  not  the  same  privileges,  245 ; — of 
JPresbytery ;  ambiguity  of  the  word  in 
standards,  286;  presbytery  judges  the 
qualifications  of  its  members,  307-313, 
(see  Presbytery  &c.) ;  importance  of 
this  right  to  judge  qualifications  of,  417. 

Membership  in  Church,  Puritan  and  Presby- 
terian theories  contrasted,  102 ;  right  of 
Church  to  decide  when  its  terms  of, 
have  been  complied  with,  398. 

Miller,  Dr.  Samuel,  theory  of,  as  to  nature 
of  eldership,  129;  oa  faults  in  public 
prayer,  163;  report  of,  on  right  of  an 
elder,  who  had  ceased  to  act,  to  a  seat  in 
Assembly  (1835),  3G3. 

Ministers,  made  by  inward  call  of  the  Spirit, 
76,  144;  Protestant  doctrine  as  to,  141; 
not  priests,  141 ;  divine  call  must  be 
authenticated  by  people,  143,"144;  from 
foreign  Churches,  rule  of  old  Synod,  182, 
187 ;  appointed  by  Assembly  to  fill  vacant 
pulpits,  186;  who  are  duly  authorized  to 
administer  the  sacraments,  200;  scrip- 
tural qualifications  of,  265);  are  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  303;  conditions 
of  ministerial  communion,  322 ;  ministers 
not  members  of  particular  churches, 
343;  sen^5e  in  which  office  is  permanent, 
348;  necessity  of  thorough  education  of, 
446;  catechetical  instruction  by,  450; — 
ministers  and  elders:  not  of  same  office, 
273;  parity  of  office  not  supposed  in 
constitution,  274;  distinction  between 
their  relations  to  presbytery,  session,  and 
church,  313; — ordination  of:  duty  of  dif- 
ferent denominations  to  recognise  ordi- 
nations of  each  other,  99;  Presbyterian 
ordination  recognised  in  early  English 
Church,  155;  inducts  into  ministry,  not 
of  a  particular  church,  bnt  of  universal 
Church,  256;  elders  no  right  to  join  in 
imposition  of  hands,  285-287,  288-294,  (see 
Elders  at  ordination  of,  &c.) ;  Kom- 
Ish  theory  of,  347;  (see  Ordination,) — 
Eights  and  powers  of ;  who  are  authorized 
to  administer  the  sacraments,  200 ; 
membership  in  presbytery  not  depen- 
dent on  election  to  pastorate,  267,  344, 
315 :  right  to  ordain  not  derived  from 
membership  in  presbytery,  292 ;  three 
constitute  a  quorum  of  presbytery,  300; 
(see  Quoram  of  Presbytery.), 
ordination  by  less  than  three,  is  not 
valid, 305-307 ;— Support  of,  see  Support 
of  tbe  Clergy ;— witboat  Pastor- 
al [Charge,  chapter  xiv.  §  9.,  343-345  ;— 
question  before  Assembly  (1835)  as  to 
their  right  to  sit  in  Church  courts,  343  ; 
difficulties  of  the  subject  and  inconsis- 


tencies of  present  practice,  344,  345  ;— 
see  Ministry. 
Ministry,— CaiZ  <o  the:  of  Bunyan  and  Farel, 
87;  Turrettin  on  right  to  call  men  to, 
142 ;  the  call  of  the  Spirit  and  authenti- 
cation  of  people,  143,  144;  distinction 
between  essentials  and  accidentals  in, 
146;  right  of  Church  to  alter  rules  of 
evidence  as  to,  331;  Protestant  theory  of, 
348,  349  ;  see  Calvin,  Farel,  Bunyan.— 
Demission  of  the  :  duty  and  desirability 
of,  351 ;  see  Demission  &o.— Nature  of 
the:  priestly  character  of,  in  Ritual 
theory,  47  ;  validity  of,  not  dependent  on 
external  succession,  76 ;  regular  suc- 
cession as  affected  by  breaks  in  Jewish 
Church,  80;  continuance  of,  perpetuates 
the 'Church,  87 ;  distinctive  Protestant 
doctrine  of,  141,  201,  202  ;  distinguished 
from  that  of  Quakers,  Independents,  Rom- 
anists, 143;  a  divine  institution,  145;  a 
regularly  ordained  ministry  not  essen- 
tial to  the  Church,  201, 202;  should  not 
hold  the  money  power  of  the  Church, 
250,  (see  Support  of  Clergy,) ;  be- 
longs, not  to  a  particular,  but  to  the 
universal  Church,  256,  347;  theory  that 
there  are  only  two  orders  in  Church, 
271;  distinction  between  the  ministry 
and  the  exercise  of  it  a  false  one,  345, 
353;  an  office,  346;  permanency  of,  348; 
Protestant  theory  of,  admits  demission 
of,  349 — 353; — see  Candidate,  Ministers, 
and  Ordination  of  Ministers. 
Missionaries,  Independent  theory  cannot 
consistently  admit  of  ordination  of,  256. 
Missions,  control  of  by  Assembly,  183,  185, 
186,428-430;  mora  stable  if  support  of  min- 
istry was  recognised  as  duty  of  whole 
Church,  260;  in  what  sense  Church  is 
commissioned  for,  419,  422;  ecclesiastical 
and  secular  functions  of,  420,  422 ;  where 
the  right  to  control  and  conduct  rests, 
428-430. 
Marshall,  Chief  Justice ;  on  the  right  of  a 
body  to  pronounce  on  the  validity  of  its 
own  acts,  391,392. 
Morals,  authority  of  Church  as  to  matter  of 

faith  and,  177. 
Morus,    on  baptism    by' heretics,    194;    on 

validity  of  Romish  baptism,  note,  204. 

Mutual  Covenants,  unscriptural  as  the  ground 

and  limitation  of  Church  authority,  92. 


National  Churches,  growth  and  basis  of,'03. 

New  England,  effects  of  Puritanism  on  the 
development  of  Church  in,  101 ;  early  re- 
lation of  Church  and  state  in,  115;  dis- 
tinction between  Church  and  parish  in, 
244;  officers  in  early  churches  ot,  270. 


524 


INDEX. 


Newman's  claim  of  right  to  subscribe  the  39 
articles  in  a  "non-natural  sense,"  318. 

New-School  party  not  excommunicated  by- 
acts  of  Assembly  (1837),  221,  389. 

New  Testament,  teaching  of,  as  to  relation 
of  Church  and  state,  117 ;  allows  wide  lib- 
erty as  to  matters  of  detail  in  Church 
government,  131 ;  as  to  duty  of  recogni- 
tion of  Christian  fellowship,  222  ;  as  to 
grounds  on  which  duty  of  supporting 
the  ministry  rests,  247;  as  to  office  of 
ministry,  346 ;  as  to  permanency  of  the 
office,  347. 

Nice,  council  of,  82  :  on  baptism  by  heretics, 
193. 

Non-interference,  a  mutual  duty  between 
denominations,  100;  of  state,  inaffiiirs  of 
Church,  117. 

"  Non-natural  sense  "  in  assenting  to  creeds, 
318. 


Obedience  to  the  Church,  as  affecting  doc-  j 
trine  of  visibility,  65;  grounds  and  limi- 
tations of,  72, 92. 

Office  and  work,  distinction  between,  as  to 
ministry,  346. 

Officers  of  the  Church,  as  affecting  doctrine 
of  visibility,  G3;  state  not  the  judge  of 
qualifications  of,  117 ;  all  called  and  en- 
dowed by  the  Spirit,  123 ;  chapter  xiii. 
242-300;  see  Deacons,  Elders,  Ministers. 

Opinions,  tendency  to  make  private  opinions 
into  laws,  237. 

Orders,  The  Church  of  England  and  Presby- 
terian, see  Eui^laad,  Ctaarcli  of,  &o.; 
indelibility  of,  in  Romish  theory,  347. 

Ordinances,  celebration  of,  a  motive  for 
Christian  union,  91;  members  of  Church 
who  fail  to  attend  upon,  190, 191 ;  who  are 
authorized  to  administer  the,  200. 

Ordination, of  elders  :  teaching  of  Form 

of  Government,  269  ;  not  the  act  of  pres- 
bytery, but  of  individual  ministers,  269; 
not  invalidated  by  irregularity  of  elec- 
tion, 367; of  ministers:    distinction 

between  valid  and  regular,  99,  144,  297, 
306;  duty  of  different  denominations  to 
recognise  validity  of  each  other's,  99; 
effect  of  making  prelatical,  essential  to 
ministry,  136;  Romish  theory  of,  143, 
347  ;  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  necessity 
of  regular  ordination,  201,  202;  inducts 
into  ministry  of  whole  Church,  256;  Pu- 
ritan theory  denies  right  of  Church  to 
ordain  missionaries,  268  ;  theory  that  it 
confers  order  and  not  office  untenable, 
272-276;  elders  may  not  join  in  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  271-287,  288-294,  (see  Elders 
at  ordination  of  &c.) ;  right  to  ordain 
belongs  to  minLsters,  290,  291 ;  an  act  of 


executive  power,  291 ;  right  of  ministers 
to  ordain  not  derived  from  their  mem- 
bership in  presbytery,  293;  presbyterial 
ordination  is  ordination  by  a  pre.sby- 
ter  or  by  presbyters,  not  by  a  presby- 
tery in  the  technical  sense,  293;  by  less 
than  three  ministers  valid,  306,  307 ; 
length  of  study  required  before,  314 ; 
Protestant  theory  of,  admits  laying  aside 
of  ministry,  348-350;  significanoe  of,  349; 

Formula  of:  candidate  may  not  put 

his  own  construction  on,  318 ;  assent  to 
every  proposition  in  Confession  of  Faith 
not  required,  318,  325-332,  336-338  ;  but 
'"system  of  doctrine  "  cannot  mean  "  sub- 
stance of  doctrine,"i320-326,  341,  342;  true 
content  of  "  system  of  doctrine,"  332- 
335,  338-340,  (see   Adoption  of  the 

Confession  ofFaltti); Sine  Ti- 

tulo :  objections  to,  arose  partly  out  of  the 
jealousy  of  the  clergy,  268;  when  advisa- 
ble, 314-316;  see  Ministers. 

Organization  of  the  Church  ;  restricted  or- 
ganizations a  necessity,  43  ;  origin  of  in- 
dividual and  separate,  91 ;  essential  unity 
of  these,  92;  provincial'  and  national 
Churches,  93;  involves  the  principle  of 
representation,  93;  necessity  for  presby- 
terial organization,  94;  object  of,  in  Pu- 
ritan theory  of  the  Church,  101 ;  theory 
that  details  of,  are  prescribed  in  Scrip- 
ture, 118, 119 ;  is  inconsistent,  131 ;  would 
do  away  with  all  general  agencies,  131 ;  is 
impracticable,  132;  and  intolerable,  133; 
(see  Divine  right) ;  theory  of,  which 
makes  Church  an  external  society,  136; 
see  Government,  Constitution,  &c. 

Original,  jurisdiction  of  Assembly,  415; — 
original  parties,  difficulty  of  determining 
in  judicial  cases,  457 ;— original  sin,  dif- 
ference between  the  doctrine  and  the 
explanations  of  it,  336. 

Owen,  theory  of  the  Church,  101 ;  denies 
right  of  Church  to  ordain  missionaries, 
268;  on  identity  of  Scriptural  bishops 
and  presbyters,  282. 

Oxford,  theory  of  the  Church,  19,  24,  38,  (see 
Anglican);  Oxford  Tracts,  39. 


Palmer,  definition  of  the  Church,  19,  21 ;  on 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  25;  on  the  neces- 
sity of  perpetual,  external  visible  society 
75;   on  relation  of  Church  and  state.  111. 

Papacy,  assumptions  concerning  the  Pope, 
69,  108  ;  gave  Cliurch  complete  ascenden- 
cy over  the  state,  107 ;  outgrowth  of  a 
consistent  theory,  108 ;  see  Rome,  Church 
of. 

Parity  of  the  clergy,  how  shown,  123;  of  of- 
fice between  ministers  ond  elders  not 


INDEX. 


525 


supposed  by  constitution,  274;  See  El- 
ders, Ministers,  Ordination. 

Parochial  episcopacy  in  opposition  to  dioce- 
san, always  contended  for  by  Presbyte- 
rians, 274. 

Parocblal  Nchools,  chapter  xv.  §  7,  448- 
454:— Report  on,  to  Assembly  (184G),  448  ; 
objections  to,  449 ;  considerations  in 
favor  of  them :  first,  the  duty  of  the 
Church  to  impart  religious  instruction, 
449  ;  second,  teaching  of  family,  of  Sunday- 
school,  and  of  pastors  inadequate,  450; 
third,  failure  of  various  plans  to  meet 
difficulties  arising  from  diversity  of  sects 
in  public  schools,  451;  fourth,  objections 
to  the  popular  theory  of  mere  secular 
education  in  these  schools,  452;  fifth,  ad- 
vantages of  parochial  schools,  453  ;  sixth, 
objections  to  them  not  formidable,  454. 

Particular  Church,  chapter  xii.,  190-242;  sub- 
ject to  the  body  of  churches,  92  ;  minis- 
ters not  members  of,  343;  supervision  of, 
when  vacant,  3G2;  see  Communion, 
Terms  of;  Church,  Powers,  Session,  &c. 

Pastors,  regular;  not  essential  to  existence 
of  Church,  72,  88  ;  who  may  vote  in  elec- 
tion of,  244-247,  (see  Election  of  Pas- 
tor), see  Ministers. 

Paul,  his  distinction  between  Israel  after  the 
flesh,  and  Israel  after  the  Spirit,  59,  C6; 
'  his  use  of  Elijah's  complaint  that  the 
Church  had  disappeared,  79 ;  precept 
and  example  as  illustrating  the  rule  of 
expediency,  228;  grounds  on  which  he 
rests  obligation  of  Church  to  support 
ministry,  247. 

Peace,  duty  of  different  denominations  to 
cultivate,  100. 

People,  right  of  the,  to  take  part  in  govern- 
ment of  Church  not  impaired  by  neces- 
sary limitation  of  that  right,  123 ;  have 
divine  right  to  take  part  in  government 
of  Church.  124;  deprived  of  all  substan- 
tive power  on  theory  that  elder  is  not  a 
laymen,  129  ;  Church  power  vests  in  the, 
142;  authority  of,  in  the  hierarchical  sys- 
tem of  Old  Testament  and  this  principle 
recognised  in  Apostolic  Church,  262; 
sense  in  which  they  govern  themselves, 
303;  extent  of  their  subjection  to  spirit- 
ual rulers,  304;  power  of,  maybe  dele- 
gated, 355 

Perm.anent,  sense  in  which  ministry  is, 
348. 

Perpetuity  as  an  attribute  of  the  Church,  27- 
29;  Romish  and  Anglican  theory  of,  G8 ; 
true  sense  in  which  Church  is  perpetual, 
85,  86,87;  see  Church,  Perpetuity 
of. 
Pittsburgh,  Synod  of,  on  making  sale  of  in- 


toxicating drinks  a  term  of  communion, 
224;  Memorial  to  Assembly  (1835),  307, 
378. 

Plan  of  Union,  unconstitutional,  389 ;  abroga- 
tion of,  dissolved  connection  of  churches 
formed  on  basis  of  it  with  Assembly,  390 ; 
not  of  the  nature  of  a  law  of  contract, 
391,392;  but  an  unconstitutional  declara- 
tion and  hence  void,  393,  394. 

Powers, — of  Church:  entirely  subordinate  to 
that  of  state  in  England,  110;  the  Prince 
the  real  possessor  of,  in  Lutheran  coun- 
tries, 113 ;  all  power  in  Church  is  not 
joint,  130;  vests  in  Church  as  whole,  142  ; 
nature  of,  177 ;  belongs  to  Church  as  such, 
202;  recognised  as  inhering  in  people  in 
Old  and  New  Testament,  262  ;  source  of, 
303,  403;  sense  in  which  power  of  self- 
government  belongs  to  the  Church,  303. 
of  Church  courts:  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive powers  inhere  in  Synods  and 
councils,  178, 354,  360,  375, 404, 408, 41G.  467, 
473  ;  powers  of  session,  presbytery  and 
synod,  179;  of  General  Assembly,  180; 
uniform  practice  of  Church,  181-188;  es- 
sential to  distinctive  character  of  Church, 
188,  189 ;  not  granted,  but  limited,  by  the 
constitution,  375,  403,  468;  three  theories 
of,  402;  limitations  of,  404,  405;  legisla- 
tive,   executive  and  judicial,  473 ;    see 

Courts,  Constitution,  Judicatories; o/ 

Eldership:  power  great  and  controlling, 
264;  nature  and  extent  of  it  determined 
by  our  standards,  204;  determined  by 
their  representative  character,  265  ;  rela- 
tive powers  of  elders  and  deacons,  299; 
see  Elders,  Eldership,  Rights  of  Rul- 
ing: £lders,  and  Eldership;— o/</je  Ge- 
neral Assembly :  in  Church  of  Scotland  le- 
gislative and  executive  as  well  as  judicial, 
172;  legislative  powers  of  our  Assembly, 
176;  to  act  bycommissions,  374-376;  inhe- 
rent, 375,  376  ;  no  delegation  of  powers  in 
the  appointment  of  a  commission,  375 ;  to 
remove  a  sentence,  414^17;  executive 
power  of,  416 ;  to  correct  irregularities  in 
presbyteries,  467  ;  powers  of,  not  granted, 
but  limited,  by  constitution,  468;  see 
General  Assembly,  Courts,  &c. of  min- 
isters, limitation  of  ministerial  powers, 
304";    see  Minister,  Ministry,  Presbyter 

and  Presbyterianism, of  Presbytery, 

fountain  of  ecclesiastical  power,  309  ;  see 
Presbytery.— o/  Session,  see  Courts,— o/ 
voluntary  societies:  dangerous,  428;  may 
determine  the  doctrine  and  polity  of  a 
large  portion  of  the  Cluireh,  431 ;  apt  to 
be  unobserved,  432;  irresponsible,  433; 
and  concentrated  in  hands  of  few,  433. 

Prayer,  Book  of  Common;  Romish  charac- 
ter of,  100;  attempt  to  force  the  use  of. 


626 


INDEX. 


on  the  people,  161 ;  used  by  Presbyterians 
and  others  on  many  occasion  for  lack  of 
suitable  liturgy  of  their  own,  1G6. , 

Prayers  of  the  Church  evidence  its  perpetui- 
ty, 86;  public,  advantages  of  liturgy  for, 
162;  faults  in,  163. 

Preaching  the  Gospel,  the  first  duty  of  the 
Church,  103. 

Preachers,  see  Ministers,  Ministry,  Presby- 
ters. 

Predestination,  see  Foreordination. 

Predictions,  of  perpetuity  of  Church,  mean- 
ing, 74;  ot  general  apostasy,  77. 

Prelatists,  impair  unity  ot  Church,  94 ;  ad- 
mit that  presbyter  and  J  bishop  denote 
same  office  in  apostolic  Church,  [242; 
see  Anglicans,  and  England,  Church 
of. 

Prerogatives  of  the  Church,  authority  to 
teach,  35  ;  power  of  the  Keys,  37. 

Presbyters,  inferior  to  apostles  and  prophets 
in  apostolic  Church,  123;  order  of  con- 
tinued and  highest  now  in  Church,  124  ; 
theory  that  elders  are  presbyters  in 
strict  sense  makes  government  of  Church 
a  clerical  despotism,  128, 129  ;  Calvin's  dis- 
tinction between  presbyter  and  ruling 
elder,  130;  special authoritj'and  power  of> 
over  elders,  130';  distinction  between  pres- 
byters and  bishops  in  early  Church  of 
England,  147-156 ;  presbyter  and  bishop 
convertible  terms  in  apostolic  Church, 
242 ;  term  presbyter  never  applied  to  rul- 
ing elder  in  our  standards,  265. 

Presbyterianism,  theory  of,  as  to  province  of 
Church,  103-105,  see  Church,  Province 
of;   as  affected  by  Puritan   theory  of 

Church,  102; Presbyterianism, 

chapter  viii.,  118-133  :-Discussion  of  ques- 
tion, What  is  Presbyterianism  ?  in  Assem- 
bly (ISGO),  118;  points  in  Dr.  Thorn  well's 
theory,  118  ;  essentials  of  Princeton  theo- 
ry, 119 ;  A.iiom  that  all  attributes  and  pre- 
rogatives of  Church  arise  from  indwell- 
ing of  Spirit,  120;  which  Dr.  Thorn  well 
also  teaches,  121  ;  fixed  laws  are  given  in 
Scripture  for  healthful  development  and 
action  of  external  Church,  122 ;  which 
constitute  the  divine  right  of  Church 
government,  123  (see  Divine  right);  and 
are  found  in  (!)  parity  of  clergy,  because 
the  order  of  presbyter  alone  is  continued 
by  essential  gifts,  124 ;  (2)  ruling  eldership, 
by  which  the  people  exercise  their  riglit 
of  government  on  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation, 124;  and  (3)  unity  of  the  Cliurch, 
which  is  one  of  subjection  as  well  as  of 
faith  and  fellowship,  125;  these  three 
elements  combined  constitute  true  idea 
of  Presbyterianism,  125,  120  262;  An- 
tagonistic theory ;  (1)  makes  ruling  elder 


a  clergyman,  127;  which  is  contrary  to 
doctrine  and  practice  of  all  Reformed 
Churches  especially  our  own,  128;  and  so 
destroys  value  of  the  office  and  reduces 
government  of  Church  to  a  clerical  des- 
potism, 128 ;  because  it  deprives  the 
people  of  all  substantive  power,  129 ;  (2) 
makes  all  power  in  Church  joint  and 
not  several,  130;  (3)  restricts  liberty  of 
Churches  to  modes  of  organization  and 
government  mentioned  in  Scripture,  130; 
which  is  inconsistent,  131 ;  impracticable, 
132 ;  and  intolerable,  133 ;  see  Constitu- 
tion, and  History  and  Intentof  Con- 
stitation-Distinctivejcharacterlof  Pres- 
byterianism, 262 ;  scriptural  warrant  for> 
276 ;  three  theories  of,  as  to  powers  of 
Church  courts,  402,  403,  see  also  Powers. 
Presbyterian  lilturgles,  chapter  x., 
157-167 : — Liturgies  not  peculiar  to  pre- 
latical  Churches,  157  ;  Reasons  for  disuse 
of  Liturgies  in  Reformed  Churches :  (1)  the 
spirit  of  liberty  inseparable  from  Presby- 
terian principles,  158 ;  (2)  inadequacy  of 
all  prescribed  forms,  159 ;  (3)  Romish  cha- 
racter of  English  liturgy,  160;  and  the 
attempt  to  force  its  use  upon  the  people, 
161 ;  Advantages  of  a  liturgy  carefully  com- 
piled for  optional  use  :  (1)  elevate  and  im- 
prove character  of  public  worship,  162; 
especially  in  public  prayer,  163  ;  in  cele- 
bration of  the  sacraments,  164;  and  in 
conducting  marriages  and  funerals,  165  ; 

(2)  supply  proper  forms  for  occasions 
when  no  minister  is  at  hand,  e.  g.,  in  the 
army  and  navy,  166;  (3)  such  a  liturgy 
neither  undesirable,  nor  impossible,  167. 

Presbytery,  nature  and  powers  of,  179;  may 
be  divided  by  Assembly,  183  ;  powers  of 
not  granted  bu*-  only  limited,  by  consti- 
tution, 191 ;  right  of  ministers  in,  not 
dependent  on  election  to  pastorate,  267  ; 
ambiguity  of  word  "  member,"  286,  289 ; 
"  hands  of,"  in  ordination  of  ministers 
refers  only  to  preaching  presbyters,  290; 
Quorum  of,  300-305,1  (see  <|aoram  of 
Presbytery) ;  elders  not  an  essential 
element  of,  301,  302;  definition  of,  301, 
302;  Presbytery  jadg^esj  Qaallfl- 
cations  of  its  Members,  307-313, 
(see  also  417);— Resolution  to  this  effect 
in  Pittsburgh  Memorial  (1835),  308;  argu- 
ment in  opposition  to  the  resolution,  308, 
309 ;  Reasons  for  support  of  the  doctrine  ; 
(1)  it  is  the  inlierent  right  of  self-preser- 
vation, 309  ;  (2)  presbyteries  have  never 
conceded  the  riglit,  309;  and  unity  of 
Church  does  not  destroy  autonomy  of 
presbytery,  310;  for  constitution  is  a  vol- 
untary limitation  of  certain  powers,  310; 

(3)  right  has  always  been  asserted  and 


INDEX. 


527 


exercised  by  our  presbyteries  and 
churches,  311 ;  (4)  it  is  the  great]]conser- 
vative  principle  of  Presbyterianism,  312; 
(5)  docs  not  give  rise  to  conflicts  of 
jurisdiction,  313;  (G),  (7)  and  (8)  local  and 
temporary  reasons,  313;  —  Powers  of: 
fountains  of  ecclesiastical  power,  179,191, 
309,403;  may  reject  applicant  for  admis- 
sion who  bears  regular  testimonials  from 
other  presbyteries,  310-313;  fallability  of 
presbytery  in  authenticating  call  to  minis- 
try, 349,  351 ;  power  of,  to  act  by  commis- 
sions, 353-362,  (see  Commissions  of) ; 
inherent  powers  of,  354,  360,  403;  acts  inva- 
lid except  in  regular  session,  365  ;  in  refer- 
ence to  erroneous  publications,  379;  — 
disposal  of  the  members  of  a  dissolved 
presbytery,  384,  40J  ;  relation  to  the 
Boards,  443-445,  447 ;  irregularities  in, 
power  of  Assembly  to  correct,  4C7. 

Priest,  doctrine  of,  in  Ritualism,  47  ;  minis- 
ters are  not  priests,  141 ;  Romish  priests 
come  within  Protestant  definition  of 
valid  ministry  for  administration  of  bap- 
tism, 203,  204. 

Priesthood,  no  regular  succession  of  in  Is- 
rael, 80. 

Private  judgment,  right  of,  37,  406. 

Principles  of  Church  Union,  see  Church, 
Principles  of,  &c. 

Profession  of  the  true  religion  the  only  es- 
sential mark  of  a  truo  Church,  45,  138  ; 
this  profession  limited  to  doctrines  es- 
sential to  salvation,  139 ;  of  faith,  see 
Faith. 

Professor  in  a  seminary  of  the  Chnrch,  in 
what  sense  required  to  adopt  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  327. 

Promise  to  the  Church :  continued  presence 
of  Christ,  29  ;  divine  teaching,  30 ;  protec- 
tion, 31 ;  universality,  31 ;  holiness  and 
salvation,  32;  evil  tendencies  of  false 
theories  as  to,  33. 

Protest,  right  of,  411. 

Protestantism,  definition  of  the  Church,  68  ; 
three  fundamental  principles  of:  (1.) 
spiritual  nature  of  the  Church,  130,  137; 
(2.)  Criteria  of  a  true  visible  Church  ,  45, 
138-141 ;  (3.)  the  nature  of  the  ministry, 
141-146. 

Province  of  the  Church,  see  Church,  Pro- 
vince of. 

Provincial  Church,  growth  and  basis  of,  93. 

Prussia,  the  prince  the  real  possessor  of 
Church  power,  113 ;  law  of,  requiring  at- 
tendance of  children  on  pastoral  instruc- 
tion, 450. 

Publications,  erroneous,  testimony  against, 
378-380. 

Puritanism,  theory  of  the  Church,  101 ;  in- 
fluence upon  Presbyterianism,  102 ;  early 


theory  of  civil  magistrate  in  New  Eng- 
land, 115  ;  theory  as  to  choice  of  pastors, 
215. 


Quakers  deny  that  ministry  ia  an  office,  143. 

Qualifications,  essential,  of  an  apostle,  123  ; 
— Assembly  judges,  of  its  members,  364, 
see  Commissioners,  General  Assembly, 
and  Powers, — of  Christian  communion  : 
session  says  who  are  members  of  Church, 
190;  may  reject  applicants  for  admission 
on  valid  letter,  310;  see  Communion, 
terms  of  ;-of  Church  officers,  state  not  the 
judge  of,  117 ;— of  ministers,  each  Church 
the  judge  of,  146,  398  ;— of  candidates  for 
ministry,  182;  presbytery  judges  of  quali- 
fications of  its  members,  307-313, 417,  (see 
Presbytery Judg^es,  etc) ;  Protestant 
theory  of,  384,  349. 

Qnoram  of  Presbytery,  chapter  xiv. 
g  1.,  300-305.— Decision  of  Assembly  (1813), 
that  three  ministers  constitute  a  quorum 
of  presbytery,  300;  ruling  elders  not  an 
essential  element  of  presbytery,  301 ;  ac- 
cording to  the  constitution,  302;  this  does 
not  deprive  people  of  their  legitimate 
power  in  government,  for  ministers  are 
also  representatives  of  the  people,  303  ; 
source  of  power  in  Christ  and  not  people, 
303  ;  this  power  of  ministry  not  peculiar- 
ly liable  to  abuse,  303  ;  limitations  of  it, 
304;  nor  does  it  disparage  the  eldership, 
304; — Quorum  of  presbytery  necessary 
for  validity  of  commission  of  delegates 
to  Assembly,  365. 

Rationalism,  prevalent  in  England,  39  ;  theo- 
ry of  tb.e  Church,  54;  in  Germany,  72. 

Re-baptism,  objections  to,  note2H. 

Recognition,  mutual  duties  of  different  de- 
nominations, 97;  of  each  other's  minis- 
try, 99;  of  bodies  as  true  Churches,  what 
the  question  turns  on,  138;  what  it  in- 
volves, 140. 

Redress,  different  modes  of,  474,  492 ;  right 
of,  479,  491. 

References,  not  confined  to  judicial  cases, 
470. 

Reformation,  39  ;  course  of,  in  England,  109  ; 
in  Germany,  112. 

Reformed  Churches,  relation  of  Church  and 
State,  114-116,  (see  Church,  Relation 
Of  Cliarcb,  etc.) ;  reasons  for  disuse  of 
liturgies  in,  158-161,  (see  Presbyterian 
Iiitnrgies) ;  on  baptism  by  heretics, 
194 ;  doctrine,  of  as  to  valid  ministry,  202 ; 
as  to  validity  of  Romish  baptism,  203, 
201;  condemn  the  papal  system,  210; 
distinctive   doctrines   of,  333,  338--340. 

Relation of  Ritualists  to  other  Christian 


528 


INDEX. 


bodies,  50;  — of  Boards  and  Presbyteries, 
443-445;  —  of  Church  and  State,  (see 
Church,  Relation  of  etc.) 

Relative  powers  of  elders  and  deacons,  299. 

Religious, life  perverted  and   injured  by 

ritual  system,  53  ; experience,  general 

agreement  of,  90  ; instruction  in  the 

public  schools,  452. 

Re-ordination,  31G ;  Independent  theory  of, 
347. 

Re-organization  of  the  Boards,  debate  on  in 
Assembly  (18G0),  43o-443. 

Representation,  principle  involved  in  organi- 
zation of  the  Church,  93 ;  necessity  for,  in 
government  of  Church,  124;  recognised 
by  divine  appointment  in  Synagogue  and 
Sanhedrim,  125  ;  difference  between  ratio 
of,  in  Scotch  and  American  Churches, 
175 ;  arises  from  inherent  power  residing 
in  the  people,  262  ;  power  of  ruling  elder 
as  a  representative,  265 ;  ministers  truly 
representative  of  the  people,  303 ;  reduc- 
tion of,  in  Assembly,  370-373 ;  powers  in- 
volved in,  407. 

Responsibility  of  the  Boards  to  the  Church, 
422-125. 

Restoration,  Assembly's  power  of,  415,  416. 

Review, — and  control ;  doctrine  of,  in  stand- 
ards, 474;  —  of  records,  inadequate  in 
all  cases  to  remedy  irregularities,  480. 

Revision, — of  constitution  increased  authori- 
ty of  higher  courts,  176  ; of  Book  of 

Discipline :  need  of  it,  456-458  ;  effective 
methods  for,  459-161. 

Right of  private  judgment,  37,  406; of 

civil  magistrate,  114,  117  ; of  Church 

members  to  withdraw  from  the  commu- 
nion, 239-242; — of  elders  to  exhort  and 
expound  the  Scriptures,  298 ; — of  a  Church 
to  decide  whether  its  terms  of  member- 
ship have  been  complied  with,  398  ; — of 
protest,  411 ;— of  redress,  479,  491 ;— of  ap- 
peal, essential  to  our  .system,  488,  (see 
also  Appeals.) 

Rights  of  Ruling  Elders,  chapter  xiii. 
g  5.,  271-287 :  Subject  suggested  by  theory 
advanced  by  "  Presbyter  "  iu  the  Presbij- 
terian  (1843),  271;  office  always  conferred 
with  order,  272;  ministers  and  elders  be- 
loQg  to  distinct  orders,  273;  Presbyteri- 
ans have  always  contended  for  parochial 
in  opposition  to  diocesan  episcopacy, 
274;  constitution  does  not  support  parity 
of  office  among  ministers]  and  elders, 
274 ;  hence  only  ministers  can  confer  of- 
fice of  ministry  on  others,  275; The 

ultra  divine  right  theory  of  the  eldership, 
276 ;  is,  first,  untenable  because,  (1)  of  the 
absence  of  Scriptural  prescriptions,'  277 ; 
(2)  the  apostles  did  not  adopt  one  unva- 
rying plan  of  organization,  277 ;  and  (?) 


the  Church  has  always  followed  their 
example,  278,  279 ;  second,  it  is  subversive 
of  our  constitufton,  280;  because  (1),  it 
leads  to  the  abolition  of  the  office,  281 ; 
(2)  invests  the  session  with  power  of  or- 
daining ministers,  282 ;  (3)  makes  paro- 
chial presbytery  the  only  one  for  whjch 
we  have  scriptural  warrant,  283;  (4)  goes 
beyond  constitution  in  deciding  as  to 
what  the  primitive  elder  was,  284 ;-Hence 
elders  have  no  right  to  join  in  ordination 
of  ministers,  shown  (1)  by  fallacy  of  op- 
posite theory,  285 ;  (2)  by  intention  of 
framers  of  constitution,  286;  (3)  by  re- 
stricted right  of  elders  in  the  session  and 
presbytery,  286 ;  (4)  by  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  the  Church,  2S7. 

Ritualism,  30  ;— theory  of  the  Church:  (1) 
distinguished  by  priestly  character  of 
the  ministry,  47 ;  (2)  by  inherent  virtue 
of  the  sacraments,  47 ;  (3)  makes  Church 
a  store-house  of  divine  grace,  48  ;  (4)  and 
its  unity  one  of  external  association,  49  ; 
(5)  insists  on  descent  through  prelates 
from  the  apostles,  49 ;  (0)  by  attitude  to- 
ward other  Christian  bodies,  50;  (7)  it  ia 
unscriptural  and  weak,  51 ;  (8)  appeals  to 
unworthy  motives,  52 ;  (0)  perverts  and 
injure.?  the  religious  life,  53;  and  (10)  is 
condemned  by  its  fruits,  54. Essen- 
tial features  of,  141 ;  see  Anglican 
Church  ;  England,  Ctanrcli  of. 

Rival  Churches  in  small  villages  a  great  evil, 
100. 

Roll  of  Assembly,  power  of  clerks  in  forma- 
tion of,  308-370. 

Roman  Emperors,  relation  of  Church  and 
state  under,  107 ;  see  Church,  Relation 
of,  &c. 

Rome,  Church  of,  theory  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  24;  of  the  visibility  of  Church, 
61-65,  (see  Church,  Tisibility  of, 
Ac.) ;  definition  of  the  Church,  07 ;  the- 
ory of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  68; 
on  the  necessity  of  baptism,  76;  Ro- 
manists concede  apostasy  of  external 
Church,  84  ;  exclusions  of,  impair  unity 
of  the  Church,  93 ;  relation  of  Church 
and  state,  106-108 ;  distinction  between 
clergy  and  laity,  141 ;  on  grace  and  pow- 
er of  orders,  143;  Romish  character  of 
English  liturgy,  100;  Validity  of  Romish 
baptism,  191-215,  (see  Validity  of, 
Ac.) ;  sense  in  which  it  is  a  true  Church, 
205,208,210;  maybe  antichrist  and  yet 
her  baptism  be  valid,  214;  support  of  mis- 
sionaries, 200. 

Rules,  difference  between  standing  and  con- 
stitutional, 187. 

Ruling  elders,  see  Elders,  Eldership,  Powers, 
Rights  of,  &c. 


INDEX. 


529 


Sabbath,  province  of  Church  respecting  po- 
litical desecration  of,  104. 

Sacraments,  inherent  virtue  of,  in  Ritualism, 
47 ;  possession  of,  perpetuates  the  Church, 
87;  faults  in  celebration  of,  164 ;  different 
theories  as  to  efficacy  of,  197 ;  who  may 
administer,  to  render  them  valid,  200. 

Saints,  Church  considered  as  the  communion 
of,  5,  22  ;  significance  of  word,  6. 

Salvation,  no  ordinary  possibility  of,  out  of 
the  visible  Church,  40;  freedom  from  all 
error  not  essential  to,  70  ;  nothing  unes- 
sential to,  is  essential  to  the  Church,  70, 
123,  139. 

Sandemanian  Baptists,  46. 

Schism,  charge  of,  cannot  rest  against  Pro- 
testants, 88;  Church  of  England  guilty 
of,  134;  in  original  Synod,  172;  doctrine 
of,  412. 

Schools,  see  Parocbial  scliools. 

Scotland,  Church  of ;  relation  of  Church  and 
State,  115 ;  why  it  never  submitted  to  a 
liturgy,  159  ;  Assembly  of,  has  legislative 
and  executive  powers,  172  ;  difference 
from  American  Church  as  to  government, 
175 ;  old  confession  on  efficacy  of  the  sac- 
raments, 198;  nature  of  ruling  eldership 
in,  263 ;  annual  commission  of,  370 ;  origi- 
nal jurisdiction  of  the  Assembly,  415. 

Scriptures,  argument  for  perpetuity  of 
Church  73;  possession  of,  perpetuates  the 
Church,  87 ;  allow  wide  liberty  as  to  de- 
tails of  Church  government,  131,  277,  440  ; 
do  not  prescribe  any^particular  form  of 
worship,  159;  teaching  and  examples  of, 
as  to  necessity  of  a  regularly  ordained 
ministry,  201 ;  reasons  of,  for  support  of 
ministry,  257  ;  see  Bible. 

Sects,  legitimate  grounds  for  existence  of, 
96;  see  Denominations. 

Secular  concerns  of  Church  should  not  be  in 
hands  of  ministry,  250;— secular  theory 
of  education  in  the  public  schools  ob- 
jected to,  452. 

Seleucia,  council  of,  denied  the  proper  di- 
vinity of  the  Lord,  82. 

Self-government,  Church  has  power  of,  277 ; 
sense  in  which  it  belongs  to  Church,  303. 

Separation — from  world  renders  true  Church 
visible,  56 ; — of  Church  and  State,  a  new 
doctrine,  116;  but  instituted  by  Christ, 
117. 

Session,  nature  and  powers  of,  179  ;  says  who 
are  Church  members,  190, 191;  to  judge 
of  those  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  218;  may  permit  members  to  ab- 
stain from  the  Lord's  Supper  under 
certain  circumstances,  241;  rights  and 
powers  of  elders  restricted  in  the,  286; 
judges  qualification  of  applicants  for  ad- 
mission to  the  Church  by  letter,  310;  falli- 


bility of,  in  admitting  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances, 349  ;  limitation  of  the  right  of, 
to  supply  their  own  pulpit,  363 ;  au- 
thorized to  do  all  that  au  individual 
Church  may  do,  403. 

Significanc    of  laying-on  of  hands,  295. 

"Sine  titulo"  ordination,  314-310. 

Slavery,  province  of  Church  respecting, 
104  ;  teaching  of  Church  concerning,  413. 

Smalcald,  articles  of,  on  power  of  the  keys, 
142. 

Smith,  Dr.  B.  M.,  opposition  to  the  Boards 
(1800),  437. 

Societies,  see  Tolnntary  Societie«  and 
Eccleaiastical  Boards. 

Spirit,  see  Holy  Spirit. 

Stan.dards,  see  Constitution. 

Statgjjiie ;  Church  has  nothing  to  do  with 
secular  affairs  of,  103  ;  remonstrances  of 
Church  against,  105 ;  (see  Church,  Rela- 
tion of  Ohrarcb  and) ;  a  divine  insti- 
tution, 116;  assumed  responsibility  for 
support  of  clergy  after  conversion  of 
Constantino,  251  ;  duty  as  to  religious 
instruction  in  public  schools,  431,  452.       . 

Study,  length  of,  before  ordination,  314  ;  ne-  ^ 
cessity  of  thorough  preparation  for  min- 
istry, 440;  Board  of  Education  may  con- 
dition aid  on  length  of,  447. 

Subjection,  to  authority  of  Church,  ground 
of,  92 ;  extent  of  people's  subjection  to 
their  spiritual  rulers,  304. 

Subscription,  see  Adoption  of  Comfes- 
sion  of  Faitb. 

ubstance  of  doctrine"  not  identical  with 
"  system  of  doctrine,"  320-326, 341,  342.       •— 

Succession,  apostolic,  49  ;  not  necessary  to 
validity  of  ministry,  76;  how  affected  by 
analogy  of  breaks  in  Jewish  Church,  80; 
difficulties  and  absurdities  of  the  doe- 
trine,  202. 

Sunday-schools,  religious  instruction  in,  in- 
adequate, 450. 

Superintendence,  examples  of,  on  part  of 
higher  courts,  181-188  ;  of  the  Assembly, 
see  Courts;  General  Assembly ;  Excln- 
slon  of  tbe  Synod  of  Western  Re- 
serve; Declaration  and  Testimony, 
Report  on  Presbytery  of  I.ouis- 
Tille ;  Powers. 

Supervision  of  vacant  churches,  362,  363. 

Supper,  see  Lord's  Supper, 

Snpportof  the  Clergy,  chapter  xiii.,g  3. 
247-262 :— Grounds  on  which  the  apostle 
rests  the  obligation,  247  ;  only  those  who 
devote  themselves  entirely  to  the  service 
of  the  Church  have  right  to  its  support, 
248 : — Historical  review  of  the  different 
methods  of  support:  (1)  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  248;  (2)  in  the  Apostolic 
Church,  249;  by  voluntai-y  subscriptions, 


530 


INDEX. 


250  ;  (3)  after  conversion  of  Constantine, 
by  the  state,  251 ; — The  obligation  rests 
upon  the  Church  as  awhole;  (1)  involved 
in  nature  of  Churcli,252,253;  (2)  involved 
in  the  commission  given  the  Church, 
254,255;  (3)  the  ministry  pertains  to  the 
whole  Church,  256  ;  (4)  all  scriptural  rea- 
sons bear  on  the  Church  as  one  body, 
257;  (5)  may  be  argued  from  common 
principles  of  justice,  257  ; — Advantages  of 
this  plan:  (1)  secures  more  time  and  la- 
bor in  ministerial  work,  258;  (2)  improves 
character  of  ministry,  259;  (3)  secures 
stability  and  power  to  institutions  of  re- 
ligion in  many  places,  259  ;  (4)  promotes 
unity  of  the  Church,  260;— objections 
answered,  261,  262. 

Suspension,  without  process,  case  of  Cumber- 
land presbytery,  184 ;— from  the  Church, 
meaning  of,  241. 

Synod,  nature  and  powers  of,  179,  (see  also, 
Courts,  Powers,  &e.) ;  examples  of  legis- 
lative authority  of  the  old  Synod,  181, 
182 ;  commissions  of,  (see  Commis- 
sions of  Presbyteries,  ^'C  ) ;  iu- 
herent  powers  of,  354,  360;  objections  to 
stopping  appeals  at,  499. 

"System  of  doctrine,"  not  identical  with 
"  Substance  of  doctrine,"  320-326,  341, 
312;  does  not  include  every  proposition 
of  the  Confession,  326-332;  nor  its  ex- 
planations of,  336-338  ;  the  true  content 
of  the  phrase,  332-335;  doctrines  which  it 
includes,  338-340. 


Teacher,  Holy  Spirit  as,  promotes  unity  of 
faith  in  the  Church,  90;  duty  of  Church 
as  a,  103,  449-454. 

Temperance  Question,  224-231: — 
Brought  up  in  review  of  minutes  of 
Pittsburgh  Synod  (1843),  224;  which  were 
declared  to  make  sale  of  intoxicating 
drinks  a  term  of  communion,  225;  dis- 
sension on  such  subjects  arises  from 
neglect  of  elementary  principles  of 
ethics,  226 ;  evil  effects  of  this  neglect, 
227;  rule  of  expediency  in  the  matter, 
228;  must  be  variable,  228;  each  person 
must  decide  it  for  himself,  229;  oppo- 
nents of  the  ultra  theory  forced  into 
false  position,  230. 

Terms  of  communion: — chapter  xii.  J  4.  a. 
The  Lord's  table  for  the  Lord's  people, 
218;— 6.-CredibIe  evidence  of  conversion 
alone  required,  218-224  ;— c.  Temperance 
Question,  224-231;— d.  Marriage  Question, 
231-236 ;  see  Communion,  Credible 
fividence,  <&c.;  Temperance 
Questlou. 


Tertullian,  on  difference  between  bishop  and 
presbyter,  151. 

Testimony,  as  bar  to  free  communion,  89 ; 
duty  of  Church  to  give,  for  truth,  103;  of 
Church  not  endorsed  by  communing 
with  it,  223,238 ; — Against  erroneous  publica- 
tions, 318-380: — (1)  not  the  condemnation 
of  the  author,  378  ;  (2)  justice  and  propri- 
ety demand  it,  379 ;  (3)  right  has  always 
been  claimed  and  exercised  in  the 
Church,  379. 

Theocracy,  the  New  England  theory  of  re- 
lation of  Church  and  State,  115. 

Theory  :— of  Church  courts,  whether  consti- 
tution is  a  grant  or  a  limitation  of  their 
powers,  190;  as  to  the  powers  of  them, 
402,403;  (see  Constitution,  Courts,  Powers, 
Presbyterianism.) ; — of  Eldership:  two 
radically  different  theories  of,  127,  128, 
262-271;  (see  Elder,  Eldership,);— of  Papa- 
cy, preceded  and  produced  the  fact,  108; 
— of  Presbyterianism ;  as  to  province  of 
Church,  103-105,  (see  Church,  Pro-rlnce 
of,);  false  theory  of,  127-133;  that  Scrip- 
ture prescribes  details  of  Church  govern- 
ment, 118,  119, 131 ;  is  inconsistent,  131 ; 
impracticable,  132;  and  intolerable,  133 ; 
opposed  to  use  of  liturgies,  158; — Puritan 
theory  of  the  Church,  101 ;  as  to  civil 
magistrate,  115;  as  to  choice  of  pastors, 
245 ; — of  Relation  of  Church  and  state :  in 
England,  110;  in  Lutheran  countries,  113; 
of  Reformed  Churches,  116 ;  in  America, 
117,  (see  Church,  Belation  of  &c.) 

Thornwell,  Dr.,  on  slavery,  104;  debate  on 
Presbyterianism  at  Rochester,  (1860), 
118;  ridicules  opposite  theory  of,  125; 
theory  that  Elder  is  strictly  a  presbyter, 
128,  129  and  130;  theory  that  infant  mem- 
bers are  not  siibjects  of  discipline,  216, 
217 ;.  on  right  of  withdrawal  from  the 
communion,  239 ;  opposition  to  Church 
Boards.  438,  439. 

litle  of  bishop,  see  Bishop. 

Tract  societies,  advantage  of  voluntary  or- 
ganization for,  427. 

Tradition,  Protestant  objections  to,  293. 

Trent,  council  of,  on  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion, 209. 

Trinity,  baptism  must  be  in  name  of,  193; 
Romish  Church  teaches  doctrine  accur- 
ately, 197. 

Turrettin,  on  relation  of  Church  and  state, 
114;  on  the  crijeriaof  a  true  Church,  138; 
on  competency  of  people  to  discern  those 
criteria,  139 ;  on  importance  of  ministry 
to  Church,  141 ;  on  right  to  call  men  to 
the  ministry,  142;  on  a  call  to  the  min- 
istry, 14G;  on  baptism  of  heretics,  194; 
on  validity  of  orders  received  from  the 
Church    of   Rome,  203;    on  distinction 


INDEX. 


531 


between   papal    system  and   Church  of 
Rome  as  a  Christian  Church,  211. 


Union,  Christian,  teaching  of  Assembly 
(186G),  413;  see  also  Plan  of  Union,  and 
Church,  Principles  of,  &c, 

United  States,  relation  of  Church  and  state 
in  the,  116,  117 ;  support  of  clergy  in, 
must  be  by  voluntary  contributions  of 
the  people,  252 ;  religious  instruction  in 
the  public  schools  of,  451,  452. 

Unity  of  Church,  an  essential  attribute  of  it, 
21 ;  various  theories  of,  24,  25;  essentially 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  42, 90,  91 ;  according  to 
Ritualism,  49  ;  man's  social  nature  a  mo- 
tive for  external,  organic  unity,  91;  of 
widely  separated  congregations,  92  ;  ex- 
pressed outwardly  by  principle  of  repre- 
sentation, 93;  influences  adverse  to,  93-95; 
organic  union  the  duty  of  denominations 
separated  on  inadequate  or  unscriptural 
grounds,  96;  lack  of,  due  most  to  differ- 
ences as  to  government,  96;  nature  and 
varrant  of,  125;  principles  of  mutual 
obligation  involved  in,  253;  would  be 
promoted  by  recognising  that  the  duty 
of  ministerial  support  rests  on  whole 
Church,  260 ;  under  constitution,  one  of 
compact,  310;  which  does  not  destroy 
integrity  and  autonomy  of  presbyteries, 
310. 

Universality,  promised  [to  the  Church,  31." 

Unlawful  and  invalid,  distinction  between, 
232,  233,  505. 

Usage  of  the  Church,  value  of,  293;  as  to 
legitimate  grounds  of  appeals  and  com- 
plaints, 482,  484,  486, 491. 


Vacant  Churches,  supplied  by  appointments 
of  Assembly,  186;  supervision  .of,  362, 
363. 

Valid  and  invalid,  meaning  of,  as  to  persons 
who  administer  baptism,  199,  201 ; — and 
regular,  distinction  between,  232,  233,  306, 
605. 

Validity,  —  of  decisions  of  councils,  83; — of 
discipline,  duty  of  denominations  to 
recognize,  of  each  other,  98 ; — Validity 
of  Bomibb  baptism,  chapter  xii.  J 
2.,  191-215:  —  Objections  to  the  adverse 
decision  of  the  Assembly  (1845),  192;  — 
/(  has  the  essentials  of  valid  baptism : 
what  those  essentials  are,  (1)  the  matter, 
washing  with  water,  193 ;  (2)  the  form,  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity,  193;  (3)  the  in- 
tention, to  signify,  seal  and  apply  the 
benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  195 ;  a!l 
of  which  Romish  baptism  possesses,  196; 
—Itis  administered  by  ordained  ministers  of 


Clirist :  meaning  of  words  valid  and  in- 
valid in  this  connection,  199;  any  man  is 
a  valid  minister  who  is  recognised  as 
such  by  a  Christian  community,  201;  and 
Romish  priests  come  within  this  defini- 
tion, 203;— 77ie  Cliurch  of  Rome  is  a  true 
Church:  evident  from  meaning  of  word 
Cliurch,  ■205 ;  from  the  possession  of 
truth  enough  to  save  the  soul,  208  ;  and 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Reformers,  210; 
— Baptism  is  initiation,  not  into  any  par- 
ticular organization,  but  into  Church  uni- 
versal, 212,  213;  —  admitting  validity  of 
Romish  baptism  does  not  deny  the  in- 
iquity of  the  Romish  system,  214,  215 ; — 
of  Presbyterian  orders  in  early  English 
Cliurch,  147-156,  (see  England, 
Cliurcb  of,  &c.) ;— of  Eldership,  instal- 
lation not  essential  to,  295-298. 

Vincent  Lirinensis,  on  prevalence  of  heresy, 
83. 

Visibility  of  the  Church,  (see  Church,  Tlsi* 
billty  of,  etc.);  the  Church  not  a  visij 
ble  society,  5,  56,  73;  visible  Church  a 
mixed  body,  36;  teaching  of  visible 
Church  often  contradictory  and  hereti- 
cal, 37 ;  necessity  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween visible  and  invisible  Church,  41 ; 
no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  out  of 
the  visible  Church,  46;  in  believers,  not 
in  organizations,  56,  73 ;  visibility  of  or- 
ganization not  essential  to  perpetuity  of 
Church,  69,  72-88,  (see  Church,  Perpe> 
tnltj^  of,  etc.);  no  necessity  for  exter- 
nal body,  75 ;  not  continuous  before  the 
Advent,  78-82 ;  or  since,  82-84;  broken  by 
apostasy  of  Judah,  79;  as  affected  by 
breaks  in  line  of  high  priests,  80 ;  oppo- 
nents concede  that  visible  Church  may 
apostatize,  84 ;  baptized  persons  members 
of  visible  Church,  103;  visible  Church, of 
whom  it  consists,  137. 

Vitringa's  theory  of  eldership,  281. 

Tolnntary  SodetieB"  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Org'anizations,  chapter 
XV.  §  6,  a.  417-435  : — Sense  in  which  the 
work  of  missions  belongs  to  the  Church: 
meaning  of  word  Church  in  this  connec- 
tion, 418;  variety  of  means  to  be  em- 
ployed in  evangelizing  the  world,  419 ; 
the  ecclesiastical  and  the  secular  func- 
tions of  missions,  420;  liberty  of  indi- 
viduals and  churches  in  employment  of 
agencies  for  their  contributions,  420; — 
Church  Boards  are  not  objectionable:  first, 
they  do  not  destroy  individual  liberty, 
421 ;  second,  they  are  consistent  with  di- 
vine commission  to  the  Church,  422  ; 
third,  they  are  expedient,  because  (1)  the 
details  of  the  work  are  thus  committed 
to  a  few  trustworthy  agents  accountable 


532 


INDEX. 


to  the  Assembly,  422,  423;  which  is  jeal- 
ously watchful,  424;  (2)  their  responsi- 
bility to  the  Church  is  more  perfect  than 
that  of  voluntary  societies,  425 ;  (3)  their 
control  of  property  is  not  a  dangerous 
power,  42G;  and  (4)  they  are  efficient, 
427;  Voluntary  societies  ate  objection- 
able: first,  their  object  is  strictly  ecclesi- 
astical and  denominational,  427;  seconi, 
they  encroach  on  the  rights  and  duties  of 
Church  courts,  428;  in  controlling  and 
directing  missionaries  and  students,  429  ; 
which  the  Boards  may  legitimately  do  430; 
third,  they  possess  inordinate  and  dan- 
gerous powers;  (l)they  may  determine 
the  doctrine  and  polity  of  a  large  part  of 
the  Church,  431 ;  (2)  this  power  is  apt  to 
be  unobserved,  432 ;  (3)  it  is  irresponsi- 
ble, 433 ;  and  (4)  concentrated  in  hands 

of  a  few,  433;  These  objections  do 

not  apply  to  American  Board,  434. 

Waldenses,  83. 

Warrant,  for  Boards  and  general  agencies  of 
the  Church,  103;— see  Eldership,  War- 
rant and  Theory  of ;— for  Presby- 
terian government,  276,  (see  Presby- 
terian ism);  —  Warrant  for  tbe 
Boards,  chapter  xv.  §  6,6.,  435-443:— 
Debate  in  Assembly,  (ISGO),  on  re-organi- 
zation, 435,436— Argument  of  Dr.  B.  M. 
Smith  for  small  Boards,  437;ofDr.  Ad- 
ger  in  favor  of  a  central  committee  to  re- 
ceive only  the  surplus  from  presbyteries 
after  they  have  done  their  own  work, 
437 ;  of  Dr.  Thornwell  on  the  unscriptu- 


ral  nature  of  Boards,  438,  439 ; Argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  Boards  :  first,  origin 
and  need  of  them,  440;  second,  the  Scrip- 
tures prescribe  only  general  principles 
of  government  and  organization  for 
Church,  4i0;  iAird,  our  standards  do  not 
assume  an  explicit  divine  prescription 
for  details  of  organization,  441 ;  fourth, 
inexpediency  of  a  radical  change  from 
the  large  representative  Boards,  442,  443. 

Water  essential  to  valid  baptism,  193. 

Wesley,  39. 

Western  Reserve,  see  Exclusion  of  tbe 
Synod  of. 

Westminster  Confession,  practical  interpre- 
tation of,  in  Scotland,  as  to  relation  of 
Church  and  state,  114;  see  Confession, 
Constitution. 

Whitefield,  39. 

Whitgift,  Archbishop ;  on  difference  between 
bishop  and  presbyter,  151 ;  on  form  of 
government  to  be  followed  in  Church, 
151. 

Whether  ruling  elders  may  join  in  Imposi- 
sition  of  Hands  at  ordination  of  ministers, 
chapter  xiii.  g  6.,  288-294,  see  Elders,  at 
Ordination  of  Ministers. 

Who  may  vote  in  Election  of  Pastor,  chapter 
xiii.  I  2.,  244-247,  see  Election  of  Pastor. 

Wilson,  Dr.  J.  P.;  theory  of  eldership,  281. 

Winchester,  Bev.  Samuel  G.,  theory  that  ap- 
peals and  complaints  can  lie  only  inju- 
dicial cases,  471,  491. 

Withdrawal  from  the  communion,  239-242; 
see  Communion,  Lord's  Supper.  , 

Word  of  God,  see  Bible,  ScriptHroa. 


ical  Semma„-Spee,  L'b-ar 


f7J]T2  01095  0287 


DATE  DUE 


GAYLORD 


#3523P1       Printed  in  USA 


'Mill,'!  * 


■^m* 


